|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/1/2008 7:12:58 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3632
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huckfinn327
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
Regarding your words: “it wasn’t just Liberal scholars”… But, “a large number of very conservative scholars who have been equally involved. Then you support your large number with (one person) Mr. Bruce Metzger. Your use of the word “conservative” and Mr. Metzger don’t mix with some Bible teachers who have this to say about Mr. Metzger: “Bruce Metzger is a Liberal. He piously claims on one hand that the Bible is the inspired Word of God; but out of the other side of the mouth he claims the Bible is filled with myth and lies. He denies the Bible’s history, its miracles, and its authorship, while, in true liberal style, declaring that this denial does not do injustice to the Word of God, for the Bible is not "written for history but for religion" and is not to be read "with a dull prosaic and literalistic mind"! Metzger has been called an Evangelical by some who should know better, but upon the authority of the man’s own writings, I declare that Bruce Metzger is an unbeliever. He is a false teacher. He is apostate. He is a heretic. Those are all Bible terms. Having studied many of the man’s works, I am convinced those are the terms which must be applied to him.” (David Cloud Wayoflife.org )
Nevertheless you introduce technicalities and have not addressed my question.
Let me repeat: McFall clearly states that the Lower Critics text OMITS the (ei) yet the translators retain it in all the modern translations. McFall applauds the CT committee for producing a Gk Text that “omits” the (ei) however he chides those who have produced the modern English translations by including the (except) idea. I introduced the Westminster Confession which is the basis of all Protestant knowledge regarding MDR and their dogmatic control of the (ei).
You then jump to Matt. 5:32 and dogmatically drive your translation of idea of an “exception.” I am offering you a possible translation in Mt. 5:32 of parektos to mean ( apart from ). This combined in 19:9 with “me epi” … without the (ei) thus translating “not for” fornication. Thus as McFall and others suggest we are dealing with the possible translation as (Not-For-Adultery). The idea here is that Not-For-Adultery means that Jesus was simply saying that there was not putting away for adultery since that was a capital crime and not at issue. Regarding of the Jewish community and capital punishment at the time of Christ all scholars understand that the Law taught death-for-adultery… and Jesus said, “I came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it … one jot or title will not pass form the Law till all be fulfilled.
Extremely Unusual Words “Except for” … What I mean by this is that in the context of Jesus’ “contrastive” interpretation of the Law: to look with lust onto a woman = adultery etc. where He permits No exceptions … you now declare that regarding the permanency of marriage he PERMITS (like Moses) and Exception of the Law of Creation-Marriage Gen. 1-2. I find it very interesting that the CT of W/H omits “without a cause” from 5:22. Seems like another plus for the Lower C. school … this is what McFall means by the CT of W/H when they omit (ei). You seem dogmatically opposed to this possibility.
Like I said: “I believe Leslie McFall has a “part” in this debate … and he at the least deserves our read.
First, your characterization of Metzger is slanderous! and I can provide you a much larger list of scholars if you would like, he is far from the only "1" who has pursued textual criticism from a conservative stand point.
Second, I specifically address your points, but you have not addressed mine at all.
Regarding Mr. Metzger: Please note that I have not characterized anyone ... I have "quoted" the specific words of the Bible teacher David Cloud of the wayoflife.org ministries and his personal assessment of Mr. Metzger. My question remains: Leslie McFall has made a contribution to this MDR debate and he should at least be given an "honest read". Do you agree?
Huckfinn
I never have a problem giving something an honest read, and I did read the paper you posted from start to finish. However, as I pointed out, I found many of his answers unsatisfactory and I do believe that the main thrust of his argument is a bit of a straw man argument because he places so much of his emphasis on a textual error that has been well know for many decades, and one on which no modern translation is based.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/5/2008 8:07:41 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 870
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
This seems reasonable. The problem is what everyone considers "laying aside of wrath" means. It surely means forgiveness but it does not necessarily mean to resume previous behavior.
It means not being the one who "cuts the cord." And remaining reconcilable even if the other person is currently not reconcilable or "divorces" us. Forgiveness means no longer holding the person responsible for their wrongs. No longer making them "pay" back what they "owe" for the harm done. Divorce is a permanent "payback." Even if we do not initiate the divorce, we are divorcing them back if we do not remain reconcilable and remain faithful to our vows (that said nothing about whether they fulfilled theirs).
We are also playing God by writing someone off as unredeemable as if we can know if they are. I sure hope God doesn't look for loopholes to "divorce" us. The point was that we should reflect Him.
_____________________________
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/5/2008 10:19:37 PM
|
|
|
huckfinn327
Posts: 382
Joined: 1/30/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
(Quote Keepingfaith) I sure hope God doesn't look for loopholes to "divorce" us.
Greetings Keepingfaith;
What a wonderful statement. It's truth is at the very "heart" of this debate and leads us to the true heart of God in relation to human marriage.
The great cry of God in Scripture: "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee." Heb. 13:5 - Deut. 31:6.
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Thanks Keepingfaith,
Huckfinn
_____________________________
NO-REMARRIAGE-THIS-SIDE-OF-DEATH .... JESUS TAUGHT CREATION MARRIAGE
www.jesusremarriagekeller.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 10:10:31 AM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 3028
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just north of Florida
Status: offline
|
quote:
A killer can be forgiven if they admit their wrong and repent of their sin. I disagree with you however that a thief gets to keep their ill gotten gains and expect God to forgive them, or that a liar can continue to promote lies. Making Jesus our Lord means turning from such things and returning other peoples property to the rightful owner. People who continue in such sins have not made Christ their "Lord" by definition.
I never said that the thief gets to keep their ill gotten gains, but usually the goods are not recovered since they have been fenced. The thief probably won't have the cash to pay for the missing good either. Are you going to hold off forgiveness? Yet there can be forgiveness anyhow. If you wait for a liar to stop before you forgive them, you may be holding onto hurt for a very long time. Yes, they need to stop the lies but that is between them and God. Yes, they haven't made God their Lord fully. What if they are heathens? You don't forgive them?
The point is that divorce is not an on going punishment or payback. Forgiveness can be given without having to remarry. The original union could have been something that should never have occured. This is something that your side will agree on whole heartedly if it is a 2nd union providing the first partner is still alive. But not the first because (tah dah) it is the first! It is the only distinction between the unions we are discribing in this thread.
_____________________________
http://www.car2ner.2ya.com
"May your days be long and your hardships few".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 8:24:45 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: car2ner
I never said that the thief gets to keep their ill gotten gains, but usually the goods are not recovered since they have been fenced. The thief probably won't have the cash to pay for the missing good either. Are you going to hold off forgiveness? Yet there can be forgiveness anyhow.
No, but an adulterer always does have the ability to end the extramarital affair, so if they choose to remain with someone elses spouse or having relations with someone who is not his or her spouse while married, then they have not repented of that sin and are in no position to seek forgiveness.
quote:
If you wait for a liar to stop before you forgive them, you may be holding onto hurt for a very long time. Yes, they need to stop the lies but that is between them and God. Yes, they haven't made God their Lord fully. What if they are heathens? You don't forgive them?
As far as myself, I don't forgive people who aren't repentant and continue to lie to me, but that doesn't mean that I cling to "hurt" over them either. I will never write them off as unworthy of forgiveness or beyond redemption, but until they are prepared to change their hearts, I can't have fellowship with them anymore.
God said in His Word that liars have no place in His Kingdom but will be sent to the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. You are correct that He is not their Lord if they are continually lying, and therefore they have not been born of Him and are not His children. That means that He will not forgive them of their sin until they turn from it and make Him his or her Lord. The same is true for adulterers:
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
I Corinthians 6:9-11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such WERE some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
quote:
The point is that divorce is not an on going punishment or payback. Forgiveness can be given without having to remarry. The original union could have been something that should never have occured. This is something that your side will agree on whole heartedly if it is a 2nd union providing the first partner is still alive. But not the first because (tah dah) it is the first! It is the only distinction between the unions we are discribing in this thread.
That's because my Lord is Jesus Christ, and He says that the first union is joined by Him for life, and that all of the subsequent so-called "marriages" are therefore actually nothing more than extramarital affairs:
Matthew 5:31-32 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Mark 10: 6-12 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 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.”
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/9/2008 8:02:02 AM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 3028
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just north of Florida
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, but an adulterer always does have the ability to end the extramarital affair, so if they choose to remain with someone elses spouse or having relations with someone who is not his or her spouse while married, then they have not repented of that sin and are in no position to seek forgiveness.
So it comes back to the question of "on-going adultery" and you have stated your reasons and scriptures for your stance quite clearly.
But others want a partner to stay single and available and forgive the partner that left and married another... in essence, forgive the adulterer even though that partner has no intention of leaving their new partner and returning to the original partner. So that is a bit of a sand in the shoe when it comes down to legally following rules and regs.
quote:
As far as myself, I don't forgive people who aren't repentant and continue to lie to me, but that doesn't mean that I cling to "hurt" over them either. I will never write them off as unworthy of forgiveness or beyond redemption, but until they are prepared to change their hearts, I can't have fellowship with them anymore.
I understand but be careful. Not all ongoing sins are the "big ones" and even small on-going sins can rip you from fellowship.
_____________________________
http://www.car2ner.2ya.com
"May your days be long and your hardships few".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 6:35:33 PM
|
|
|
p.progress
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/23/2006
Status: offline
|
P.Progress:
This is a series of shortened posts, where I am attempting to repost and edit a previous 'too long' post of mine:
"Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread" - 8/11/2008 6:35:33 PM
page: 395
Post #: 9859
P.Progress:
To benelchi and to all:
In an attempt to try to keep my posts shorter (not necessarily more concise), I will break up my 'long' post into smaller chunks - which in reality is 'bite size pieces' of the previous longer post. I don't know if this is acceptable or will encourage those who find it difficult to follow and/or struggle with exercising patience in reading longer, complex and uneditied posts - I hope so - to be willing to read shorter posts, but I'll give it a whirl.
So I have tried to both edit and prefaced my posts with an explanation of how I've chosen to approach these passages in 1 Cor. 7:10-11, as well as 1-9, 12-40. And I have included some specific questions I hope you'll attempt to answer. Thank you. P.P.
benelchi:
I've tried to hone down and be more precise with my questions to you. The reason being I have not found the answers you've posted clear or crisp enough for me a yet with regard to the questions KeepingFaith (KF) posed in the quotes below, and in my post afterwards.
That is not necessarily a commentary on you, as it may be more of a commentary on my own ineptitude to follow your comments. Yet I don't think that I am so poor in that regard to have missed where it was that I should have read where you provided your 'proof' or attempted to 'prove' your claims you made below.
I'm not accusing you of any lack of candor here, just I have yet to gain a clear understanding where it is that you precisely see what you claim to see in scripture below and frankly from other posts, with reference to various claims you've made.
Below though I think is a good example of what I am referring to:
The comments you made in replying to KeepingFaith are not nearly satisfactory. You've left much unsaid. I expected and looked for some detailed or sufficiently detailed explanation from you, this is only natural to expect from you if not otherwise demanded of you.
This was especially so, in lieu of the fact that you deemed her answers as failing to take into account "context", and failing to "consider" the "whole passage in 1 Cor. 7" and "circumstances" you made claims about.
But where can I read in the below quotes where you explain from whatever passages in scripture you think refute KF's statements, where your counter claims can be verified to be the teaching of scripture? I don't see where you provided anything solid that I could 'sink my teeth' into 'proof-text' or explanation wise, just claims from you that scripture 'taken in its context' refutes her assertions, and your counter implied claims that your take on these passages DO take into consideration, the context she allegedly failed to, and the circumstances you claim she failed to consider in the context of the passages.
Not that I am necessarily aligning myself with KF here, in all that she said. But I do not agree with your statements and conclusions regarding what I for the meantime, have to assume you were claiming at least 1Cor. 7:10-11 is teaching about marriage, separation, divorce and 'remarriage' (as you improperly refer to it).
And since I am in disagreement with your statements, you have to expect me (and others) to expect from you what you clearly failed to provide - concrete evidence for your claims. And this is especially so in lieu of your assertion that your interpretive claims - and not KF's interpretive claims - are contextually sound and takes everything into consideration (circumstances; context; etc.) that must needs be taken into consideration to rightly divide the true meaning of these passages.
If I am wrong here, then please point out where I missed the boat here. Show me where I missed it. But please be sure to address these fully or more than sufficiently. Thank you.
quote:
quote:
A woman must not separate from her husband... 1 Cor 7:10-11
Paul- AGREES
Benelchi- DISAGREES
A man must not divorce his wife... 1 Cor 7:10-11
Paul- AGREES
Benelchi- DISAGREES
If she does depart, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled... 1 Cor 7:10-11
Paul- AGREES
Benelchi- DISAGREES
Benelchi:
This claim is made by taking this verse out of context. If the whole passage in 1 Co. 7 is considered, we understand that there are circumstances where a a spouse may separate, and even remarry. To say that Paul agrees (or that I disagree) is simply false. There are times that separating is wrong, there are times that choosing to divorce is wrong, and there are times where biblically divorce is permitted. Many of these circumstances are covered in 1 Co. 7 (the whole Chapter), and to simply ignore the portions that you don't like, and emphasize the ones you do is invalid.
Added notation and questions to you benelchi:
You say:
quote:
"This claim is made by taking this verse out of context..."
First, what specific claim that was made are you referring to: ____________________________________?
Second, which specific verse did she take out of context:________________________________________?
You've only quoted her statements on verses 10 & 11 of 1Cor. 7, so what verse...which of these two verses are you referring to.
You say further:
quote:
"...If the whole passage in 1 Co. 7 is considered..."
Thirdly, Which 'whole passage' in 1 Cor. 7 are you referring to: __________________________________?
By the whole passage, are you referring to vers 10 or 11, or both 10 & 11? Or did you mean to say the whole chapter; or segament (such as vs. 10 thru 16)?
And you say further:
quote:
"...we understand that there are circumstances where a a spouse may separate, and even remarry"
Fourthly, where, in which specific statement(s) of Christ's or Paul's in 1Cor. 7, does it spell out in no uncertain terms what you claim above:
A. That a wife or husband "may separate" from their spouse: _______________?
B. And they may do so in/under these "circumstances": _________________________________________?
C. What specific "circumstances" are you referring to? Cite them please: ___________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________?
[Notes:
[1.] Please be specific. If your 'proof-text' is soley or primarily a portion, segment or slice of a particular passage; or several slices of a or more passages, then cite them specifically. Here are some examples:
1Cor. 7:10 (a.) "Now unto the married I command," (b.) "yet not I, but the Lord;" (c.) "Let not the wife depart from her husband;"
1Cor. 7:11 (a.) "But and if she depart," (b.) "let her remain unmarried," (c.) "or be reconciled to [her] husband:" (d.) "and let not the husband put away [his] wife."]
1Cor. 7:15 (a.) "But if the unbelieving depart," (b.) "let him depart." (c.) "A brother or a sister" (d.) "is not under bondage" (e) "in such [cases]:" (f) "but God hath called us to peace."
1Cor. 7:27 (a.) "Art thou bound unto a wife?" (b.) "seek not to be loosed." (c.) "Art thou loosed from a wife?" (d.) "seek not a wife."
1Cor. 7:28 (a.) "But and if thou marry," (b.) "thou hast not sinned;" (c.) "and if a virgin marry," (d.) " she hath not sinned." (e) "Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you."
[2.] Be sure though that they (your claims) are so spelled out in the text itself, that when they are read, there is no doubt they express what you claim they express in no uncertain terms - or in more than reasonable terms, so as to establish the obvious certainty of your claims . I shouldn't 'need' you or anyone to decifer for me what you claim is being stated by Christ or Paul, and frankly I won't lean on your's or another's understanding. Otherwise, if your 'proof-texts' or segment-out-of your 'proof-text' requires your interpretive skills, due to your 'proof-texts' inate vagueness; then do the best you can to try to make your case, from other clearer passages in scripture, where the same thing is being addressed in greater detail, and make an attachment for your explanation.]
And yes:
Fifthly, who is "we" - "we understand that...": __________________________?
Benelchi, you say By, "If the whole passage in 1 Co. 7 is considered", I take it you mean to be limiting your remarks to the two verses (vs.10 & 11) that KF is citing above? If so, then let us LOOK at the TEXTs of those two verses.
It 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."
"And unto the married"
The context to me says that Paul's comments are NOW being directed to the "married". That is, the 'believer -to - the - believer'. His focus is strictly upon those who are "Now" married - but only believers. He is NOT speaking "Now" to the male or female "widows" [-ers] as he just finished addressing in vs. 8-9 [Paul used the generic term "unmarried" there to identify the male widow, as they did not it appears have or use the term 'widower' as we hae and use today]; nor to the male or female "virgins" as he does later in vs. 25-28, 32, 33a; or the father's of "virgin" daughters in vs.36-38; or widows again in vs.39b,c & 40.
"I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord,"
Clearly this command originated from Christ, the God of creation, and the Creator and Guard of the "one-flesh" relationship he created and instituted between a man and his lawful wife. The command is not merely Paul's inspired or his uninspired personal advise.
"Let not the wife depart from [her] husband:"
These words seem plain enough to me. Here we have the command of Christ that Paul was referring to, and in the full scope of its pronounciation it leaves NO ROOM for doubt that Christ straitly forbids a lawful wife to "depart", 'leave' or "put asunder" (chorizo) and abandon her lawful husband. Not one single word let alone a cluster of other words, were added to what he said here. This then has to be understood to mean that in the absence of further words, comments or explanations, THE COMMAND IS to be taken at FACE VALUE, it is SIMPLE and pointed. But below I'll expound upon it in one way to give the jest of what I believe it being communicated in this commandment:
'Wife: Do not leave or attempt to put asunder what God has put together - the one-flesh union between you and your husband.'
And more than this. In limiting himself to saying only "Let not the wife depart from her husband" in the very first part, I have to take it to mean that this is a command in and of itself, and that the sense of the message intended for it cannot be at all modified or weakened in its force, by what is then said afterwards; as the language therein does not provide anything that could be considered or even misconstrued as a so-called 'qualifier'. The claims therefore that some make, saying that the following words:
"But and if she depart,"
...[M]eans, 'But and if she NEEDS TO depart', or simular interpretive musings, are NOT grounded in or supported by the actual words of Christ.
The words of Christ, "But and if she depart," , instead brings into the equation and points to the real possibility that not every wife is going to be obedient to his command - he is NOT introducing or granting any sort of an 'exception clause' as so many want to read into the texts here.
As I have said before, there is no language to arrive at such a conclusion. And because the words "but and if she depart" contain nothing more than then what they contain, they cannot rightly be said to be expressing any sort of qualifier or exception to the command that went before it.
And so he informs such, who violate his commands therein, and thus place themselves NOT ONLY in a state of disobedience to the command "Let the wife not depart...", but place themselves as well in a potentially grave set of circumstances; circumstances that may lead them to 'think' that they are somehow at liberty to go beyond his doctrine even further, by "marrying another", a false liberty that would make an adulterous out of them to be sure. He WARNS them then in manner of words (my opinion here), that they had better not do so, they may not marry another, that is sin, the sin of adultery. So in his words he then commands the disobedient wife, in view of the adultery she would be guilty of IF she were to be "married another", to:
"let her remain unmarried"
There is no language here that permits or even suggests 'liberty' of any sort for the wife to "marry another", or as the popular but "falsely so-called" concept calls it 're-marry' (while her husband is still alive). On the contrary, it is expressly forbidden for the believing wife who has left her husband to "marry another", as that is what the language used communicates. If the wife (who has been commanded not to depart) disobeys, deserts and "departs" from her husband against the commandment of Christ, after awhile (or secretly beforehand) desires to have a husband; if she would be married, there is but one solution and option for her: She must 'marry' her first husband again, and only him. And this is so, whatever be the reason she decises and chooses to depart.
How so? Because there is no hint let alone any clear language in these two verses to support any claim or notion that she CAN and has so-called 'JUST GROUNDS' to "DEPART" from her husband. If she had any, then it would have to be so expressed in the texts here, and there are none so expressed. So don't any seriously attempt to claim to see any therein. All you can do in that regard is preface your claims with 'I think', 'I believe', 'I assume', 'I suppose', 'it stands to reason', 'it is only reasonable to assume...suppose...imagine...this to be the case', and so on.
Now read into them if you will, but be certain you do so perhaps at even your peril. And yes I see it that strongly. If there is any 'exception clauses' that allow the wife to depart from her husband for some 'reason', and on top of that permits her to "marry another", it will have to be found and claimed elsewhere - it isn't to be seen or found here in 1Cor. 7:10-11...and I see it, it isn't to be found elsewhere either (save widows).
Instead of departing she is to remain with her husband; if she disobeys this, abandons her duties as his wife and defrauds her husband of herself and her companionship, she is forbidden and warned not to "marry another" - as the extended contextual setting on this subject reveals. Instead she is to remain unmarried.
Yet the real emphasis is not on the call to 'remain unmarried' - how could Christ emphasis this, and remain the Author of Reconciliation? Instead, the *second most profound emphasis has to be understood to be that the wayward wife (and she is wayward) is to seek what Christ's Spirit has to be convicting her of if she is truly his, that of reconciliation to her husband. [* 2nd to the 1st, which is to not depart in the first place.]
In 1 John 2:1, John writes to believers, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous". Let me advance this parallel between the two sets of passages before us here:
"...I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, "Let not the wife depart from [her] husband,
"My little children, these things write I unto you,
"but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried"
"that ye sin not"
"or be reconciled to [her] husband"
"And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"
Reconciliation is the 'option' being presented in both of these texts (1Cor.7 & 1Jhn.2), NOT to 'remain' in one's sin - or failure to return and be reconciled (some state of 'limbo'). Reconciliation requires one to be at enmity with the another: The wife on some level, is at enmity with her husband that she left (departed and deserted); the sinner (or sinning saint) is on some level and form, at enmity with God. The only solution is to confess and forsake their sin, return and be reconciled to the one they have separatef themselves from through their sin.
Benelchi, you say that,
quote:
"This claim is made by taking this verse out of context. If the whole passage in 1 Co. 7 is considered, we understand that there are circumstances where a spouse may separate, and even remarry."
But just taking this one passage (vs.10-11), THERE IS NO stated or for that matter even suggested scenario where the text says or alludes that "circumstances" of any sort, provides anything to make us "understand" that "a spouse may separate, and even remarry".
Where do you claim to see (understood) this to be the case in this passage (1Cor.7:10-11)? Were you referring perhaps to another passage in 1 Cor. 7, verse 15 perhaps? I don't know, but if so, that is not this passage, and this is the passage that KeepingFaith is citing. And if so, verse 15 is not addressed to the 'believer-to-believer' married couples (I realize you must know that of course).
And even so, it also contains nothing that declares that the wife is free to marry another, should her unbelieving husband choose to "depart" (vs.12-16). It doesn't say that "if the unbelieving depart, a brother or sister is" at liberty to marry (another), FOR THEY ARE NOT BOUND "in such cases" , THAT WOULD BE CLEAR, would it not? But instead we read that the Apostle's advise here to the believer is to understand that if they "depart", they are "not under bondage in such cases". But the phrase "not under bondage" is not a declaration that even comes close to being on equal footing with the clarity given by God in the scriptures when he explains and warns of putting away and marrying another; or warns of not departing and remaining unmarried but rather to reconcile.
Got to go.
< Message edited by p.progress -- 8/13/2008 1:03:02 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 6:59:18 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3632
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
Benelchi, you say that,
quote:
"This claim is made by taking this verse out of context. If the whole passage in 1 Co. 7 is considered, we understand that there are circumstances where a spouse may separate, and even remarry."
But just taking this one passage (vs.10-11), THERE IS NO stated or for that matter even suggested scenario where the text says or alludes that "circumstances" of any sort, provides anything to make us "understand" that "a spouse may separate, and even remarry".
However, you didn't even take just one passage, but only 1 Cor. 10-11 to support your conclusions; just two verses from that passage. This was a letter written by Paul to the Corinthian church, and what he wrote must be understood in the context of that letter (the whole thing). Picking and choosing specific verses while ignoring others in the same passages or letter is not a valid method of interpretation. By picking and choosing verses outside of the context in which they are written will allow anyone to support almost anything.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 9:35:05 PM
|
|
|
CoeurdeLeon_
Posts: 9048
Joined: 9/4/2005
From: Inside my head
Status: offline
|
I recently saw a post in another thread listing 67 verses "proving" that the earth stands still and the sun and stars revolve around it. That poster would also say that, if we disagree, we are disagreeing not with their interpretation but with God Himself.
You can indeed cherry-pick verses to support a misguided and incorrect interpretation.
_____________________________
This morning I was awakened by the sound of purple
colliding with the fragrance of laughter.
Eutychus
New Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 10:41:39 PM
|
|
|
p.progress
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Benelchi, you say that,
quote:
"This claim is made by taking this verse out of context. If the whole passage in 1 Co. 7 is considered, we understand that there are circumstances where a spouse may separate, and even remarry."
But just taking this one passage (vs.10-11), THERE IS NO stated or for that matter even suggested scenario where the text says or alludes that "circumstances" of any sort, provides anything to make us "understand" that "a spouse may separate, and even remarry".
Where do you claim to see (understood) this to be the case in this passage (1Cor.7:10-11)? Were you referring perhaps to another passage in 1 Cor. 7, verse 15 perhaps? I don't know, but if so, that is not this passage, and this is the passage that KeepingFaith is citing. And if so, verse 15 is not addressed to the 'believer-to-believer' married couples (I realize you must know that of course).
OMG, benelchi! You're scaring me here. I mean it. Don't you see what you've done in your above post? Of all that I said, you chose to focus in on the above 'clip'? You snatched this one comment of mine, and then comment on it, leaving the impression that I failed to consider the context of the passage. This is very strange to me PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF what I said JUST AFTER that 'snipet ('clip') you cited from my post. You know why? Because IT - the NEXT section - as well as the first part of my post (up top), gives CONTEXT TO what I said just above...that is, IN the LONE 'snipet' (clip) you ONLY managed to cite then commented upon.
I can't figure out what you mean by :
"However, you didn't even take just one passage, but only 1 Cor. 10-11 to support your conclusions; just two verses from that passage."
What do you mean I didn't even take JUST ONE passage, but ONLY 1 Cor.10-11 to support my conclusions?
"This was a letter written by Paul to the Corinthian church...
Yes? I know that, so the point is?
"...and what he wrote must be understood in the context of that letter (the whole thing)."
The whole thing? You mean from ch.1 thru 16? What he wrote in 7:10-11, and/or 1-8, and 12-40, has to be interpreted from the context of the whole letter? Of course! To the extent it bares direct relevance to and would somehoe change the otherwise obvious meaning of what is being stated on face value in the 7:10-11 passage - but lets not stop there; the same holds true across the length and breath of all of scripture.
"Picking and choosing specific verses while ignoring others in the same passages or letter is not a valid method of interpretation.
I wholeheartedly agree! I haven't done that my friend, but it appears your confused into thinking I have. Reread my post benelchi - ALL OF IT. Especially the part that FOLLOWS the slice you commented upon, as I said before. It as well as the very beginning of my post provides the context to WHY I SAID, WHAT I SAID. You'll need to follow what I said very closely to get my point. I know about context and my comments are carefully following not only the strict context of the specific text (7:10-11, 12-15), but I am following the extended context of the whole chapter, book and other passages throughout scripture on the same subject.
You can of course reject this. But aquestion here? Why is it that you have done this very thing you acuse me of here? Look, you haven't or can't or won't even honor the contextual setting my own comments are to be found in my post.
"By picking and choosing verses outside of the context in which they are written will allow anyone to support almost anything."
You're preaching to the choir here. Now apply what you've said here to WHAT I SAID. Please repost and include the following sentences in your comments:
By, "If the whole passage in 1 Co. 7 is considered", I take it you mean to be limiting your remarks to the two verses (vs.10 & 11) that KF is citing above? If so, then let us LOOK at the TEXTs of those two verses.
It 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."
Benelchi, you say that,
quote:
quote:
"This claim is made by taking this verse out of context. If the whole passage in 1 Co. 7 is considered, we understand that there are circumstances where a spouse may separate, and even remarry."
But [BY YOU] just taking this one passage (vs.10-11), THERE IS NO stated or for that matter even suggested scenario where the text says or [EVEN] alludes [TO THE NOTION] that "circumstances" of any sort, provides anything to make us "understand" that "a spouse may separate, and even remarry".
Where do you claim to see (understood) this to be the case in this passage (1Cor.7:10-11)? Were you referring perhaps to another passage in 1 Cor. 7, verse 15 perhaps? I don't know, but if so, that is not this passage, and this is the passage that KeepingFaith is citing. And if so, verse 15 is not addressed to the 'believer-to-believer' married couples (I realize you must know that of course).
I haven't the time now to clean up the rough edges in this or the last post. So please do your best to try to understand what I am actually saying ans addressing in this and the former post. Thank you. P.P.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/12/2008 6:49:50 AM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 3028
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just north of Florida
Status: offline
|
How about taking it total context of the whole bible. Some of us see God move above and beyond our circumstances to bring us redemeption in ways we would never suspect. For some that would mean holding onto the marriage God wants us in, with both hands and toes no matter what. For others, we are released from bondage and could very well be restored into a union with a person that God had in mind before we fell into a sinful and misguided union with someone else. For others, we keep missing the mark (sigh) and chosing poorly.
I seldom see God move in expected and boxed in ways.
_____________________________
http://www.car2ner.2ya.com
"May your days be long and your hardships few".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/12/2008 1:00:02 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 870
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Picking and choosing specific verses while ignoring others in the same passages or letter is not a valid method of interpretation. By picking and choosing verses outside of the context in which they are written will allow anyone to support almost anything.
Exactly...
Violating every hermeneutic principle...and forming a doctrine based on the unclear verses at the exclusion of the plethora of clear ones that all harmonize together........is not a valid method of interpretation. Even worse is ignoring parts within the SAME VERSE that one claims they have found an exception in... like Matthew where it says the INNOCENT woman who is put away is committing adultery if she remarries.
Picking and choosing verses out of context would be taking an old covenant law that does not apply to us in order to justify a divorce, while claiming we are under "grace" in the New Testament. And claiming we don't have to keep all the other old covenant laws like stoning our disobedient children and marrying our brothers wife if he dies...
Or the famous... Duet "prohibition to marry the first spouse" when that scenario being described is not even divorce as we know it today. And Jesus gave a VERY different story when He threw out those laws, and said it is not lawful to even take another spouse after divorce- since He calls it adultery.
Thus, the command from the Lord to remain unmarried or be reconciled... which has to apply to everyone. It is not physically possible for it to only apply to one party or the other, since we are BOUND to each other FOR LIFE. One cannot be free to remarry and not the other. This command says it all and there is no explaining it away. Unless you believe the Lord was cruel enough to just throw it in there for those who might be naive enough to fall for it.
Talk about cherry picking... most Pastors today act like the command to remain unmarried or be reconciled doesn't even exist- they blatantly ignore it. How sad... such a flippant disregard for God's Holy Word.
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 8/12/2008 1:12:37 PM >
_____________________________
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 8/12/2008 2:21:45 PM
|
|
|
p.progress
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/23/2006
Status: offline
|
NOTICE:
Car2ner,
I have to apologize here. The post I made is way to long, and in need of editing and proof-reading...which I don't have time for now. But I can't rightly save it for later, so am posting it now.
Also, it may appear that I am being caustic towards you, I am not. That was not my intention, but I do present what I have said in such a way that can certainly be taken that way I fear.
The things you stated in your short post do grieve me, and from my perspective, they ought to. I am not trying to call you...excuse me, condemn you as anything; who and what you are and all that you believe I am not privy to.
But the things that you have expressed, if I rightly understood them, I reject hands down. So I have to express my own understanding as I do, but find it near impossible to be gracious...as gracious I would desire. I am not afraid of being strong or reproving, rebuking or even rejecting others when it is necessary and unavoidable. But I am not saying that you have shown yourself to me at least to be so unworthy as to reject (from my perspective again). Please you or others may find it tempting to just denounce me personally here, I hope that is not so, though it has happened in the past, and the 'meat' of what I have presented hase been ignored - or worse yet, ripped out of its contextual sockets (as I put it).
I hope to hear of any constructive or legitimate corrections and rebutals...just take what I have said in its context please. Thank you. P.P. (Scot)
quote:
ORIGINAL: car2ner
How about taking it total context of the whole bible. Some of us see God move above and beyond our circumstances to bring us redemeption in ways we would never suspect. For some that would mean holding onto the marriage God wants us in, with both hands and toes no matter what. For others, we are released from bondage and could very well be restored into a union with a person that God had in mind before we fell into a sinful and misguided union with someone else. For others, we keep missing the mark (sigh) and chosing poorly.
I seldom see God move in expected and boxed in ways.
Car2ner,
I have to assume you are probably referring to and commenting on my post. I can only suspect this, I don't know for absolute certain; as you do not address me by name or quote anything I've said. My only clue to this is found in the CONTEXT of your comments:
quote:
"For some that would mean holding onto the marriage God 'wants us in', with both hands and toes no matter what. For others, we are 'released' from 'bondage' and could very well be 'restored into a union' with a person that God 'had in mind' 'before' we fell into a sinful and misguided union with someone else."
These statements clearly are not directed at benelchi, if I understand his some of his positions.
You say:
quote:
How about taking it total context of the whole bible.""
Yes and where, in the TOTAL CONTEXT of the WHOLE BIBLE, have you found any real and demonstrable evidence that spells out what you are postulating here? Are you referring to Deut.24? 1Cor.7:15? 1Cor.7:27-28a? 1Cor.7:11? 1Cor.7:8-9? Where? In Genesis somewhere? Somewhere in Exodus through Joshua, Judges through Ruth; how about Nehemiah or Ezra? In Psalms, Proverbs, S. of Solomen? Perhaps Jeremiah (3), Ezekiel (16)...Malachi (2)? Where?
Where are the passages that POINT BLANK EXPRESS (say) WHAT YOU CLAIM THEY MUST SAY and TEACH?
quote:
"the marriage God wants us in" ???
The marriage God 'wants us in'? Is this a 'direct quote' from a book in the scriptures I'm yet unaware of? If so, where then is this sliver of a quote of scripture to be found? Name the book, chapter and verse(s) please?
Or if not a direct 'word for word' quote: Where then, in what book(s), chapter(s) and verse(s) is the 'concept' you've declared to be 'biblical' and to be found in the "TOTAL CONTEXT of the WHOLE BIBLE" - where are the exact passages?
quote:
"For others, we are 'released' from 'bondage' and could very well be 'restored into a union' with a person that God 'had in mind' 'before' we fell into a sinful and misguided union with someone else."
Others are 'released' from 'BONDAGE'? Now I'm lead to assume you are referring to 1Cor.7:15..."a brother or sister are not under bondage in such cases", so you have accepted the interpretive quess work, that concludes somehow without clear evidence to support this hypothetical conclusion, that IT IS beyond a shadow of a doubt, precisely that which was intended by Paul, when he gave them his opinion, his advise...his uninspired counsel?
A. You mean to say that your really willing to lean your full weight [soul] on your own understanding, lean on this imaginative guess work (hypothesis), regarding the ambiguous phrase in v.15 "a brother or sister are not under bondage in such cases"?
B. You are so certain this is "sound doctrine: and "sound speech", that you are willing to not only trust it for yourself (personally perhaps), but also teach others this hypothesis as well?
C. You're sure you've substantiated the certainly of this? And that Paul's words "not under bondage in such cases" was intended by him to communicate that which your interpretive hypothesis claims for them? That when an unbelieving husband or wife "departs" that the believing wife or husband is at liberty to "marry another"? And that in spite of the declarations later in 1 Cor. 7:39-40 and Romans 7:2-3?
Your banking on this...that you cannot be wrong here?
D. You apparently are. Well you're banking on an interpretive opinion of yours, about a phrase that is NOT "sound speech" and cannot be supported by the context of the 1Cor.7:15 passage itself, let alone be substantiated by a search of "the TOTAL CONTEXT of the WHOLE BIBLE".
E. Nowhere in verse 15 of 1Cor.7, nor those that precede or follow verse 15, provide any clear explanation or definition for the precise meaning of the phrase "not under bondage in such cases" .
F. If it were provided in the passage itself, you and other like yourself would quickly cite it and would never have to try to explain the meaning of the phrase or what it forbid or allowed orotherwise.
G. You have to start explaining what you SAY ('think'; 'hope'; 'want' to 'believe') IT MEANS.
H. And why?
I. For the obvious reason that the phrase ITSELF (in and of itself) does NOT provide any kind of CLEAR explanation of its EXACT MEANING. That is to say, it is less than clear, and more than mildly ambiguous...way too ambiguous to make such bold, unfounded and potentially destructive claims as you seem to show you are inclined to make.
I'll say it another way:
You mean to say that "in the TOTAL CONTEXT of the WHOLE BIBLE", this guess work (hypothesis) about "a brother or sister are not under bondage in such cases" is so certain and 'sound', that you're willing to teach others who's husband deserted them (they were 'UN-believers') that "not under bondage" means their no longer bound by "the law of their husband" and teach also that Paul's word mean they may are at "liberty" to "marry another" - in spite of the declarations in 1 Cor. 7:39-40 and Romans 7:2-3?
That is of course your prerogative.
But if you are wrong and you have instead of rightly dividing the Word here, corruptly handled them. And are misrepresenting the truth concerning this passage and the subject matter taught therein, regarding what constitues a one-flesh relationship (union); and what, when, why and how God says this union is only able to be severed.
You say:
quote:
"For others, we are released from bondage and could very well be restored into a union with a person that God had in mind before we fell into a sinful and misguided union with someone else."
If by 'restored', "restored into a union..." and the rest; you mean restored back to one's spouse they either left or were cast out from, then I would say along with scripture that, that indeed is the person which God had in mind to be restored to BEFORE they "fell into a sinful and misguided union with someone else". His mind is ever desirous of reconciliation, restoration, repentance of the sinner, the returning of the wayward sinner to God, to his/her own sound mind, and to those that they had been in union with BEFORE they fell away into sin.
For the [lawfully wedded] wife that has left her [first] husband, divorced him even, and even "married another": It is the will of God, to be sure, for her to repent of her adulteries against her husband; and to return to him if at all possible.
And it is possible in many cases. Especially when the husband has maintained an open heart towards the wife of his youth, and she is desirous to truly repent. And repent of what? Her treacherous acts against her husband by deserting him, in defrauding him, by 'legally' but unlawfully divorcing him and committing adulterous acts against him in thought and in deed...and that even by committing 'legal' adultery against him by 'marrying another".
But if she repents she may be restored and 're'-marry her first husband, ...THIS is the "person that God had in mind" to be restored to and turn away from their sin, by first repenting of and turning away from the "sinful and misguided union" they tried to justify through some legal mumbo-jumbo "with someone else".
First Corinthians 7 (in particular, contrary to the claim for 7:15) says and teaches nothing about the 'right to marry another'. It does speak of and teach about the requirement to 're'-marry one's first lawful spouse - that is found in 7:11a &b. The wife that departs against the will & command of Christ, is to 're'-concile with her husband she deserted, and that would mean and/or include to 're'-marry him IF she filed and obtained a 'legal' document stating the state has severed their contract with their spouse.
1Corinthians 7:
1-7 General intro. Marriage vs. fornication. Duties of spouses physically wise. Denial of right to defraud spouse of intimacies, save by mutual consent. Encouragement to remain single by Paul - not a command.
8-40 Start of Paul's discourse, answering of questions, scriptural commands and instructions, and in addition at times, Paul's personal advice and thoughts, to the various catagories of males and females, with reference to the husband and wife relationship.
8-9 To the widowed. To the male 'widower' -"the unmarried", here the generic term is used to distinguish the male counterpart of the female "widow" who lost their spouse through death. The unmarried her is NOT inclusive of all catarories of the 'unmarried' - here only referring to the specific catagory at hand: the unmarried through the deathof their spouse (male and female). The term 'widower' was not used, as it was not so used of such men back then, as it is now used of such men today. Paul's comment about abiding as he did, 'may' indicate he too was an "unmarried" 'widower' himself. No way of knowing possitively either way from the text here.
The point about burning is NOT directed to and so cannot apply to the 'divorced'.
It is certain that a man or woman that departs or puts away their spouse is going to encounter the temptations that await those who have experienced physical intimacy before.
10-11 Hense we read and see that in v.10-11, Paul...Christ himself commands not to separate. To separate is to act treacherously and defraudingly towards one's spouse. And sets both the deserter and the deserted in a place of temptation that Christ's power is certainly available to resist, but we are afterall human and God created us with drives and basic needs; and those for physical intimacy and carnal satisfaction of the sex drive are real. And the remedy is not to merely resist them, but to channel them in the way God ordained and sanctified to channel them, express and experience them: with one's lawful spouse. To defraud one's spouse of this divinly instituted and created provision, is more cruel and heinous then is commonly explored and talked about.
In v.10 and most of 11 he zeros in on the female, the wife, the believing wife who is married to a believing husband. And he commands her not to depart from him - no exceptions stated and qualifiers expressed here.
So we may take it that the 'exception clauses', found in Mat.5 & 19, or Deut.24 are not in view here and do not apply, in that whatever be the reason the wife might have here for departing from her lawful husband, is expressly forbidden by Christ.
The words "...but and if she depart..." is not an exception clause being introduced, as there is no language to define what exceptions are supposedly being spoken of. And so there is no support for the idea that this phrase "...but and if she depart..." is speaking of or referring to such an alleged 'clause'.
Rather, Christ is not stupid (one of the greatest understandments to be sure), he knows there will be [believing and unbelieving] wives (and husbands) that will not obey his command. His words "...but and if she depart..." is added as an acknowledgement, to acknowledge that there will be a wife here and there that might not...will not obey him; and will, in spite of his command, "depart from her husband".
They are warned that if they depart, they are warned (commanded) I say the scripture teaches here, not to even consider that they are at liberty, unbound, released from the (so-called) 'bondage' of their one-flesh union with their spouse...though referred to as 'unmarried'. They are to remain unmarried - meaning they have no right ever to marry another, but are rightly encouraged to "be reconciled" to their husband (he is her husband still, though she be called 'unmarried').
Reconcilitation is the will of God, if any have failed to keep and do what is his FIRST WILL & COMMAND for them to keep and obey, not to depart...or rather, nurture their soul and that of their spouse in the things of God, so that no such negative command is ever to be needed to obey out of sheer obedience towards Christ.
If you don't love your husband (or wife), and want out, but you say you love and want and DO love and follow God: Then obey Christ, love him, fear him and learn to love, reverence, submissively yield and obey your husband as Chri | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
