Marriage, Divorce, and ReMarriage.. Toward a Biblical Perspective (4)

SI Sponsors

Forever Written / Scripture Signs

SermonScribe - Transcribe your sermon with AI

Church Plant Media, Sermon Hosting and Website

Bible Lines App / Video sermons by Bible Verse

Login

Main Menu

· Home
· About Us
· Audio Sermons
    by Speaker
    by Topic
    by Scripture
    by Podcast
· Text Sermons
    Christian Books
    Online Bibles
· Video Sermons
· Vintage Images
· Discussion Forum
· Contact Us
· Giving

Featured Sermon - The Path to Power and Usefulness by A.W. Tozer

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Marriage, Divorce, and ReMarriage.. Toward a Biblical Perspective

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 Next Page )

Poster

Thread

MrBillPro
Member

Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3422
Texas

Re:

There is another thread labeled:
Marriage/Divorce & Remarriage- What does God say about it?

Is this one different in content? or a newer one? you guys really threw me a curve here. :-?

_________________
Bill

2006/5/13 16:26

Profile

Re:

What SE does is to say that Deut 22 was amended by Deut 24:1-4 and that the woman found NOT a virgin is not to be put to death, but to be divorced from that point on.

One immediate problem that causes is that in Matt 19 Jesus would now be saying NO divorce for this 'fornication' or what they call PREmarital sex (betrothal sex by some).

The ridiculous error SE seems to miss is that after its all said and done, Jesus turns right around and gives EXCEPTION for this very fornication He supposedly just ended divorce concerning, thereby contradicting EVERYTHING He has supposedly just said.

preposterous.

Not to mention that Deut was given over approx 40 days...meaning that Deut 22 was given approx 3.5 days before Deut 24.

this would mean our Great wonderul, all-knowing God gave LAW concerning this woman not found a virgin, then being so absent minded AMENDED this law less than a month later.

Not only are these two BLATANT errors present, but also this means that the HUSBAND is the only person not able to have this wife put to death.

Deut 22:23-24 would STILL be effective meaning that ANYONE else who busted this wife for fornication could have her put to death :-?

SE is simply unwilling to try to harmonize ALL scripture in this matter.
It is my belief that he has been shown errant and sees the contradiction, but pride keeps him from re-evaluating what he believes.
We know all good bible students are always willing to accomodate new information and make every attempt to harmonize the WHOLE word of God.....well, theyre supposed to anyway

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/sealedeternalsbasicerror.html

2006/5/13 16:33

Sealed
Member

Joined: 2006/5/13
Posts: 22
Milwaukee WI

Re:

Quote:

The ridiculous error SE seems to miss is that after its all said and done, Jesus turns right around and gives EXCEPTION for this very fornication He supposedly just ended divorce concerning, thereby contradicting EVERYTHING He has supposedly just said.

That is not what I claim at all. Jesus was affirming the one exception in the Jewish Law for divorce and remarriage which was the discovery of sexual indecency at or before the consummation of the marriage which is described in detail in Deut 22:13-21, and says that God gave them this exception because of their hard heartedness. The reason He said this is that this was God's legal justification to divorce Himself from Israel and become engaged to the Church. He was speaking to the Jewish people in the context of the verses in Matthew, and Matthew being a Levite wrote the Gospel to the Jews, which is why the exception is covered there, but absent from the other gospels.

Mark and Luke which were written to Gentiles say that there is no exception for anyone to divorce and remarry without committing adultery, because the Gentiles they were written to did not make betrothal covenants, so the Jewish exception wouldn't be applicable. To suggest that there is any scriptural grounds for divorce and remarriage is to deny the scriptural authority of Mark and Luke along with Paul's epistles, or to suggest that Jesus and Paul were heretics.

I Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Romans 7:2-3 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

Mark 10:11 And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

Luke 16:18"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

If there is any legal justification for divorce, then none of these verses can be true.

Sealed

2006/5/13 16:43

Profile

Re: Marriage, Divorce, and ReMarriage.. Toward a Biblical Perspective

Hi FOC,

Quote:

Good catch Dorcas.

I'm not out to 'get' anyone. I'm aware of my own past failings as well as the grace of God to me personally, when I reply in these threads on marriage. I'll probably say more in the other thread which you brought back up, because I think I'd contributed to its earlier pages.

2006/5/13 16:43

Re:
its exactly what you are saying. Sorry SE, but Jesus lays out His rules, THEN gives His exception....thereby refuting your entire doctrinal stance. NOWwhere does He ever state that it ONLY applies to Jewish betrothal....NO scripture EVER makes that claim....only you and your kind do.

2006/5/13 16:46

Re:

Fornication (porneia g4202) cannot mean illicit sexual activity only 'during Jewish betrothal" as some try to state.

The word porneia (rendered 'fornication) is directed SPECIFICALLY to GENTILE converts in Acts 15 to tell them to abstain from 'fornication' (porneia G4202).

===========================================================================
"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Act 15:19-20)

fornication
G4202
????????
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
===========================================================================

Since betrothal is a Jewish custom, using this word 'porneia' to instruct the gentiles means that porneia cannot in any way specifically mean, and limited to, sexual sin during the JEWISH betrothal period.

So we can know with absolute confidence that when our Lord says 'except for fornication' pertaining to divorce, that adultery is not committed upon REmarriage in such cases, that His exception applies to His followers, ALL of them, not just Jews....this is the truth that scripture as a whole provides.

HOME
1

2006/5/13 16:46

Re:

Mark and Luke which were written to Gentiles

Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matter

Some state that because Matt. was written to Jews that the difference of the exception clause (Matthew 19:9 and 5:32...the part that says except for fornication (porneia) applied only to the Jews because of their betrothal customs.
The assertion that because the exception clause is present in Matthew, yet not in Mark that it is only for Jews is absurdity.
Lets look at the example of the empty tomb and see the great differences there. between these two writers.

Mat 28:2-6 And behold, a great earthquake occurred; for an angel of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. (3) And His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. (4) And the guards were shaken for fear of him, and became like dead men. (5) But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. (6) He is not here! For He is risen, just as He said. Come; see the place where the Lord was lying.

Mar 16:5-8 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right clothed with a white robe, and they were alarmed. (6) But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has arisen! He is not here! See the place where they put Him. (7) But go, say to His disciples, and Peter, that He is going before you into Galilee; there you shall see Him, just as He said to you." (8) And going out, they fled from the tomb, but trembling and amazement held them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

See how Marks description of the Angel(s) is lacking greatly compared to Matthews?
Marks writing seems many times to just be recording occurances without adding a lot of detail.
Possibly why Mark is the shortest of the Gospels
Mark doesnt even mention this "Great Earthquake" that Matthew tells about.

So WHICH is right.....Mark to the Gentile, Matthew to the Jews ?
Was it One angel or two?
Did they appear like a young man in a white robe to Marks audience, or like lightening to Matthews?
Do these record TWO different events or one ?

Did the great earthquake happen according to Matthews account or not?
Was the earthquake taught to Jews and not to Gentiles ? Some would have to say as much by the way they teach that Matthew is written to Jews and Mark to Gentiles.

ALL of them are right, we take the TOGETHER in CONTEXT and find the HARMONY between them.

===============================================================================
We see other discrepancies, even among the SAME writer Luke in Acts.

And the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
(Act 9:7 EMTV)

versus

"And those who were with me observed the light and became terrified, but they did not hear the voice of the One speaking to me.
(Act 22:9 EMTV)

We have them hearing, but not seeing in chap 9, then just the opposite in chap 22.
Which is correct?

Possibly its meaningless as that isnt the point of the text, but we can cleary see that even when its the same writer discrepancies can occur, let alone a writer simply not recording every detail that another has.

==============================================================================
Matthew being written to Jews has NO bearing on this matter.
There are other books such as Hebrews to those Hebrew converts and James being written to those of the twelve tribes scattered abroad.
Will we say ''these are written to Jew and therefore not for us gentiles" ?
Will we cast aside ANY teaching we dont like if it wasnt written to us gentiles specifically?

Jesus didnt SAY it was only for Jews and their betrothal year. He made on clear exception for divorce and remarriage...ONLY for whoredom or you commit adultery when you remarry.

We know this, God gives His law to humanity. He wants all people everywhere to obey Him.
When God distinguishes that a rule is for one group and not the whole, He states it clearly (below about Levitical priests forbidden to take wives ''put away'').

Since Jesus did not specify that this only applied to Jews, there is no reason to think that it did.
Since Jesus also did not specify ''espoused wife'' but clearly the word for ''wife'' was used, He must have been upholding that, as it always has, the sexual sins of the guilty break the conditional covenant of marriage. Jesus states we can put away a wife for this reason alone.

So we know that when some proclaim that Matthew was written to Jews, that it is irrelevant, it was written for the followers of Jesus Christ.
The rules apply evenly to all, the Jews do not receive some special ability to protect themselves from a whoring spouse while the rest of His children are left open to abuse. To state as much would be an absurdity.

*IF* it made ANY difference that Matthew had differences, then to follow proper rules of interpretation, we would have to do the same with EVERY book in the bible. Anything that was written to a Jewish christians would NOT apply to gentile christians if it were not repeated in a book written TO gentiles.

The fact is this is absurd.
The rules of Christianity are given to ALL of us, not some rules for this group and some to the other.
When you hear someone hand you a line like ''Matthew was written to Jews and applies to the betrothal period'' ask them to PROVE it conclusively...keeping in mind all the other material in this site.
They have not a single clear verse that makes the assertion...all they do is fill in the gaps with thier own ideas, rejecting the facts in the matter as we have discussed on this website. (ex. Porneia being ALL inclusive of sexual sin and NOT just premarital sex)

HOME
1

2006/5/13 16:47

Re:

If there is any legal justification for divorce, then none of these verses can be true.

Then you understand NOTHING concerning an 'exception'.

Let me ask....are you a sinner?
Do you sin? Ever?
[b]
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
[/b]

If I use your logic then THIS passage CANNOt be true.
[b]
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

[/b]

Context, SE, context.....
by your method of understanding those two passages MUST conflict.

2006/5/13 16:51

Sealed
Member

Joined: 2006/5/13
Posts: 22
Milwaukee WI

Re:

Quote:

Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matter

It matters a great deal when you are claiming that Jesus Christ is contradicting Himself. It is one thing to tell a consistent story with less details, and quite another to make two statements that are absolutely contradictory to one another.

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery...(Mark 10:11)

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery...(Luke 16:18)

"Everyone" and "whoever" are all inclusive statements that by definition mean there cannot be exceptions. Therefore you cannot reconcile an interpretation which says "not necessarily everyone" with these verses without having one or the other be in error.

Sealed

2006/5/13 16:57

Profile

Re:

:D :D

YOU are the one who is contradicting himself.
Your whole teaching is a contradiction.
You have been corrected by your own group and still refuse to accept this correction.

Sure we can reconcile the exception.
It, by its very definition, opposes the normal rules....get it?..an EXCEPTION?

And again we state that *IF* you were correct, then Jesus has just done away with divorce for her not being found a virgin in Matt 19....
THEN turned right around and made EXCEPTION for just that :D :D

your doctrine is what is contradicting itself, not our Lord

2006/5/13 17:06