Does God ever permit divorce?

This exact same topic was started on another forum by mr sanderson just 2 minutes before it was posted on the Baptist Board. After only 4 posts, it was rightfully closed. Mr sanderson is spamming these forums with his cultish beliefs and does not respond to people's questions and comments. He needs to grow up.

I think this thread should close down as well.

 

SFIC -
I agree!

 

I agree with SFIC--this thread was closed on another forum after only 4 posts. Steve either needs to join in the posting and answer some of the comments in his thread, or stop posting entirely. These "drive bys" are a turn off and add nothing to this forum.

 

I'll take that one further and ask the administrators to remove Mr. Sanderson's posting privileges. It is obvious he is not on here intending to participate in dialogue, but rather spamming his garbage wherever he can.

I would hate for a unbelieving, divorced woman...who wears pants...has a male OBGYN...owns a television...just received an NIV Bible as a gift, and believes Friday was the day Christ was crucified visit the BB and read his "sermons" (term used loosely), as something Baptists and the BB support.

 

Re the whole Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage issue... (From some of my earlier studies)

This is not a simple issue, simply because it is difficult if not impossible to respond to the great intensity of emotion surrounding this subject. I am going to start in 1Cor 7 and look at other passages from that perspective.

The whole chapter of 1Cor 7 is crucial to understanding Paul’s additional regulations and concessions concerning marriage. His teaching is the last word on the issue and he adds to what we have from the OT and to what the Lord has said as recorded in the Gospels. Any teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage that fails to consider 1Cor 7 is incomplete.

That Paul is answering questions regarding singleness, marriage, divorce, and remarriage is clear from the context. Paul starts off with, “concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1Cor 7:1). This seems to be a response to the question “Is it a good idea to remain single?” Paul responds, “If avoiding sexual sin requires one to marry, get married. And after getting married meet each others physical needs, except for mutually agreed on seasons of prayer and fasting. At the end of the time consecrated to the Lord, resume marital relations, lest you fall prey to Satan’s snares”.

Then Paul states his preference that those who can handle singleness, stay single, but this is not a command (v. 6-7, see also Matt 19:10-12).

Verse 8 introduces a word that appears nowhere else in Scripture but here in this chapter. The word “unmarried” (Greek - agamos) appears four times, in verses 8, 11, 32, 34. It is distinguished from “widows” “wives” and “virgins” (v. 8, 34). It is defined in verse 11 as one who has “depart[ed]” from her husband – “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.” The word “depart”, Greek word - cho(w)idzo(w) means divorce. Jesus uses this word to refer to divorce in Matt 19:6 – “What therefore God had joined together, let not man put asunder.” I believe it is wrong to understand the departing as anything less than full divorce. Some have argued that Paul allows for separation, but not divorce in this chapter. Such an interpretation fails to take into account the Lord’s use of the word and that cho(w)ridzo(w) is used in other Greek literature to clearly indicate divorce. The idea of a “Biblical Separation” that is less than divorce is a modern explanation that has no support from either the Greek or ancient custom. Paul defines “unmarried” as a wife who has departed from her husband or a husband who has “put away” his wife.

This is important to understand that Paul tells us that he is adding to the teaching of the Lord Jesus from verse 12 and on. – “to the rest, speak I not the Lord”. Just as in verse 10, Paul told us that the command to remain married is from the Lord.

Jesus has given some clear instruction and in my judgment Matthew 19 allows divorce and remarriage for “fornication”, or more broadly, almost any “sexual sin” (Greek - porneia). No doubt many will disagree with me here. But I will explain more fully after looking at the OT.

The original passage that the Pharisees quoted in attempting to force Jesus to side with the conservative Rabbi Shammai, or the liberal Hillel, was from Deut 24:1-4. Shammai allowed for divorce only for adultery and Hillel allowed for divorce for almost any reason. Hillel’s view was certainly the most popular but if they could force Jesus to choose one over the other, then the other crowd would be against Him.

The Jews understood the Deut 24:1-4 passage as a “command to give a writing of divorcement” (Matt 19:7). The AV wording can also be so understood – “then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (v. 1). Jesus replies, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered (emphasis added) you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt 19:8). Jesus corrects the perception that Moses commanded divorce.

The actual Hebrew sense of the Deut 24 passage is as follows: “When a man takes a wife, marries her, AND IF he finds some uncleanness in her, writes her a bill of divorce and sends her out of his house; AND IF she goes and marries another man; AND IF the latter husband divorces her, OR IF the latter husband dies, THEN she may not return to her first husband.” The passage regulates the divorces that were already being practiced by the Jews as learned from either the Egyptians or the other nations. ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT TO NOTICE HERE: God does not regulate that which he forbids! God regulates the practice of divorce, He does not forbid it. Of course, neither did He condone it.

Three other important points to notice here. 1) There is no thought of a betrothal period in Deut 24. 2) The divorce did break the marriage, and 3) the second marriage is recognized as valid since the man who takes her next is called “husband”. The argument that “divorce does not break a marriage” (Gothard and others) and that ANY future marriage is therefore adultery fails to stand from the very first mention of the practice of divorce and remarriage. AGAIN, God’s regulation is not prohibition, it is tacit permission. God tolerated the practice, even though it was against His original plan. Why? Because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19:8). His original plan was one man, one woman, one lifetime, period. Then sin entered the picture and God finally grants this concession regarding the practice – after a divorce and another marriage, a woman may not go back to her first husband.

Why is the Deut 24 passage significant? BECAUSE it is impossible to understand the NT correctly without a correct foundational understanding of the OT. The OT is the foundation upon which the NT stands. Jesus words must always be understood, interpreted, and reconciled in light of what we find in the OT.

Many have suggested that the Jesus’ use of the word “fornication” indicates that the divorce occurs during the betrothal period. Joseph was prepared to divorce Mary upon learning that she was pregnant. It is true that divorce was required to break the betrothal even before the marriage had been consummated. The question remains, is that what is in view here in Matthew 19?

The original passage that was used to introduce the passage has no thought of a betrothal period anywhere in the text. The fact that a return to the first husband would be “defile[ment]... abomination... [and] sin” seems to clearly rule out any idea that the marriages had not been consummated. Some have argued that the use of porneia rather than moichea suggests that sexual relations prior to marriage are in view. This understanding of the word “fornication” is naive and not in line with its use in either the NT or other ancient Greek literature. The word porneia is much broader than moichea and would encompass any kind of sexual sin, including adultery. The argument that adultery could not have been meant in Matthew 19 since the Mosaic Law provided for stoning in that case fails to take into account that the Jews were no longer allowed to carry out that sentence because of the Roman occupation.

The question by the Pharisees was an attempt to force Jesus into one of the two camps, either that of Shammai or Hillel. It would seem that Jesus chose middle ground after reminding them that God’s original plan and current desire was one man, one woman, for one lifetime. The concession to divorce was God’s concession because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19:8). Then Jesus says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Again, this must be understood on the basis of the foundation laid in Deut 24.

In Jesus’ day, the whole debate revolved around what was meant by “some uncleanness” (Deut 24:1). The only other place the same two words are used in Scripture is in Deut 23:14 – “And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.” (Vss 13-14). The word “uncleanness” (Heb. ervah) is used 54 times and is translated as nakedness (51), shame, unclean, and uncleanness (once each). In the Deut 24 passage it seems apparent that something less than adultery or premarital sexual activity is indicated since the Mosaic Law generally required stoning in both of those cases.

In my judgement, Jesus’ choice of the word “porneia” is broader than the “adultery only” position of Shammai but much narrower than the “almost anything” position of Hillel. The strong reaction of the disciples, “If that is the case it is better to never get married” has been taken by some to mean that Jesus’ words were more restrictive than either Shammai or Hillel. It is also possible to understand their reaction as an indication that they may have leaned more toward Hillel’s position on the issue and Jesus’ words placed greater restriction on divorce and remarriage.

We should also note that the exception clause is applied to both the matter of the legitimacy of the divorce and the possibility of remarriage. Again, in the Deut 24 passage, the fact of a divorce allowed for remarriage. God regulated this, but did not forbid it. In Jesus words, “if you divorce, except for sexual sin, and remarry, you have committed adultery.” The exception applies to both the divorce and the remarriage according to the grammatical structure of the sentence. The other passages in the Gospels that do not discuss the issue in as much detail must be understood and interpreted in light of the Matt 19 passage.

When Paul says, “Do not divorce your spouse, and if you already have, seek reconciliation” he is quoting the divine standard given in Genesis and reiterated by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 19. The fact that Paul does not mention the exception clause does not lessen the validity of the exception given by Jesus. Paul simply chose not to repeat what was already well understood.

As Paul moves onto new ground in verse 12, as an apostle, he adds to the teaching of the Lord Jesus as he does in many other areas as well. This is not a disclaimer that makes the following instruction optional as being simply his opinion. Not at all, it is still the law and the testimony, it is just that this was something new that had not been addressed yet.

Again, bear in mind that Paul is addressing the questions that they had sent to him (v. 1). It is likely they had asked, “What about those of us, who by virtue of our new faith in Christ, now find ourselves married to unbelievers?” Paul answers, “do not divorce them simply because they are unbelievers!” “One believer in the home is a sanctifying influence upon the unbelieving spouse and the children.” “If the unbeliever wants a divorce, let them go. You are not bound to continue in such a relationship. Do you think you should stay married in hopes of seeing them come to Christ? You do not know if they will ever become a believer! If they want out, let them go, you are free in such a case as this.” (My own paraphrase)

So, Moses did not limit the reasons for divorce too narrowly. God only forbade a return to the first husband. Jesus allows for divorce only in the case of sexual sin, some would argue persistent sexual sin. Paul now allows divorce if an unbeliever wants to be divorced from a believer. It seems clear that it is the unbeliever who must initiate the request for a divorce. The believer is not free to seek a divorce, but must remain in the marriage so long as the unbeliever is willing to stay married. I would further suggest that the believer has a much greater obligation to demonstrate the love of Christ in such a situation.

This leads to the question of whether or not the believer can then be remarried. I understand the words “not under bondage” and “called to peace” as being equal to the words “at liberty to be married” (vss. 15, 39). If the unbeliever requests the divorce, the believer is free to grant the divorce and to seek remarriage, but again, “only in the Lord”, or to another believer (v. 39).

What about people who have come from a mixed up, scrambled, broken past and then accepted the Lord Jesus? I believe the context indicates that they should seek reconciliation with their former spouse if possible, but if not they may be free to remarry as well. Why? I refer back to verses 8 and 9 – “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” Remember that the word “unmarried” (agamos) refers to those who are divorced. Why would Paul grant this concession? In order to avoid “fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (v. 2). Jesus clearly recognizes that most men cannot handle singleness (Matt 19:11-12).

NOW. To specifically address the abuse issue. AND I do realize that some may feel I am stretching a bit here. The matter of applying principles to specific issues that are beyond the scope of the NT is never a simple task, but I will give my best shot.

In an instance where serious abuse is continuing, the unbeliever may not say he wants a divorce with his mouth, but he is SCREAMING it with his actions! For a believer to initiate and complete the divorce is not a violation of the principles of the Word of God IMHO. And as specifically addressed above, if the divorce is allowed, I understand the Scripture to teach that remarriage is allowed as well.

 

Amen to SFIC. Every post Right Rev Sanderson seem to be at odds with Scripture.

 

Since all Sanderson does is start a topic and then abandon it, why is he still allowed to post here? Can anyone doubt that he is trolling? After the "Smash your TV sermon" how can anyone have any doubt as to who and what he is?

 

webdog,

Well said, and ditto. His brand of radical theology has little place and little respect on this board. However, I am not sure that constitutes a good reason to kick him off. But, the fact that he never engages, but only posts and runs, should be ample reason for him to be banned...

 

Re the divorced pastor issue, here is my study on that one....


An Elder (Bishop) must be “the husband of one wife” (KJV). The word anar appears 215 times in the Greek NT and is translated as man (156 times), husband (50 times), sir (6), fellow (1), not translated (2). The Greek word guna appears 221 times and is translated woman (129) and wife (92). Either of these words for husband or wife could be understood as referring to any adult man or woman without reference to their marital status (Matt 1:16,19; 7:24,26; 1:20,24; 5:28). In the original Greek manuscripts (apographs), the word translated wife appears before husband. Literally the phrase is “a one-woman man”. Because of the fact that gunaikon (wife/woman) is in the emphatic position and is an attributive genitive indicating quality, the phrase would be best translated as “a one-woman kind of man” (Ed Glasscock, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 140 #559, Jul 1983, p. 252).
There are four common views concerning this phrase:
1. A Bishop must be married.
2. A Bishop must only have had one wife in his lifetime.
3. A Bishop may not have been divorced.
4. A Bishop must be a one-woman kind of man.
Before looking at these views in order, we should perhaps recall that God often does establish higher standards for his leaders than for the rest of the people. For instance, Ezekiel 44:22 forbids a priest to marry a divorced woman or a widow, unless the widow had been married to a priest before. Every where else in Scripture, the right to marry a widow or a widower is clearly established. Yet here, the priest is not allowed to marry a widow. Under the Mosaic Law, God set a higher standard for His priests than for the general populace. It is God’s prerogative to do whatever he chooses to do. However, the fact that God established this standard for the priests of Ezekiel’s day, does not mean that the same standard applies to elders in a New Testament church today. The Jews were also under the Sabbath Law (Exod 31:12-18). This was a covenant sign between God and Israel; the church is not part of this same covenant and is not obligated to keep the seventh day (1Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10). We must determine what God has said to New Testament Christians in this regard. It is not appropriate to insist that certain portions of the Old Testament should apply to the church – unless there is a clear link established in the New Testament (Acts 15:1,13,19-21; Col 2:14-17).
Keeping these principles in mind, we will look at the different views concerning the phrase “one-woman man” in the order listed:
The first view states that a Bishop/Elder must be married. If the man does not have a wife, how can he be a one-woman man? Some who hold this position also insist that Elders must have children (v. 4) to demonstrate their ability to manage a household and by application the church of God. Some would even go so far as to suggest that the children must be nearly grown so that the parenting skills could be observed in the final outcome. This is a “taste the fruit, to know the tree” kind of mentality. While these ideas may have some advantages and could be argued logically from some standpoints, the real issue is, “Does the word of God clearly say that Bishops/Elders must be married?” If this is the meaning of the phrase, it is in direct conflict with Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church (1Cor 7:7-9, 25-33). Further, if church leaders must be married, what are we to do with the fact that Paul was not married? It may be argued that Paul is not specifically called an elder. John MacArthur convincingly argues that Paul was an elder based on Acts 13:1 and 1Tim 4:14 w/ 2Tim 1:6. Also, since Paul’s position as an Apostle was above elders, any standard that applied to elders would most certainly have applied to higher levels of leadership, though it is not necessarily true that the same standards would have been required of lower leadership positions. The qualification of being “apt to teach,” did not apply downward to the deacons, but it most certainly fit the leaders of the church who were above the elders (Eph 4:11). It would be inconsistent with the rest of Scripture to insist that God requires Elders to be married while allowing an Apostle to remain single. Based on Paul’s singleness, his admonition to remain single for the sake of the ministry, and the fact that the Greek construction and case form suggests a quality of character rather than simply marital status, it is best to discount this first view as inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament. Any specific interpretation must fit the rest of Scripture as well.
The second view of this phrase allows Elders to have only one wife in a lifetime. The rationale from this view comes from the fact that the text says “one woman” and from establishing a parallel between the Elder and his wife and Christ and the church. Since Christ only has one bride, the church, it is argued that His Elders are only entitled to one bride. Against this position we find the whole of Scripture. The right of a widow or widower to remarry is established without question throughout the entire Bible and confirmed by the Apostle Paul (Rom 7:2). Paul even commands Timothy to encourage the younger widows to remarry (1Tim 5:11,14) rather than remain as widows. Even though there were some limitations and stipulations, the Priests were allowed to remarry in the Old Testament (Ezek 44:22). It is certainly a far stretch to argue for this on the basis of typology between Christ and the Church and an elder and his wife. This view has no basis in the Word of God.
The third view alleges that a divorced man may not serve as an elder. Some would narrow this to a man who has been divorced and remarried. Some attempt to expand it to include the wife of the elder as well. In this case not only would the Elder have to be a one-woman man, but his wife would have to be a one-man woman, with the assumption that neither could have been divorced and remarried. This is clearly going beyond the words of the text, yet, such forced interpretation is common among many conservative groups.
Prior to dealing with this third view in detail, perhaps we should note that Paul does not say, “not a divorced man.” The concept of divorce nowhere appears in 1Tim 3 or Titus 1. Those who hold this position must infer that it is assumed by mention of the “one-woman” relationship. Yet, we must remember that it is not good practice to assume something that cannot be clearly established in the immediate text or by comparing with other passages.
Is it possible that a divorced man could be allowed to serve as an Elder? Or, an Apostle? If Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 8:1; 22:20) it is likely that he was a divorced man. Members of the Sanhedrin were required to be married and we know that Paul was not married at the time he wrote First Corinthians (1Cor 7:8; 9:5). Yet, this cannot be insisted upon for nowhere is it clearly stated, or even implied, that Paul was divorced. The silence of Scripture cannot be offered as support for either position. All we know from scripture is that Paul was single at the time First Corinthians was written.
Concerning the issue of divorce and remarriage:
1. God’s original plan was - one man, one woman, one lifetime (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6).
2. Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage on the basis of “immorality” (Matt 19:3-12; Matt 1:19).
3. Paul allowed divorce and remarriage on the basis of desertion by an unbeliever (1Cor 7:8-9, 12-15, 39).
Two further issues must be considered here:
1. Was the divorce justified, or allowed, according to Biblical teachings on the matter; and,
2. Was the divorce prior to salvation and has repentance taken place and reconciliation sought? One could also ask, if the divorce was after salvation, is the forgiveness of God less available for the saint than for the sinner? (Rom 5:8-10)
Some have also argued that the issue of polygamy (having more than one wife) is the subject of this phrase. Though polygamy was not legal under Roman law, there is ample evidence that is was practiced, at least in the outlying provinces of the empire. It is possible that this issue is addressed in the phrase, but not likely, because of the parallel phrase used in 1Tim 5:9 referring to widows.
The fourth, and most likely the correct view, is that Paul is stating that for a man to be an elder, his moral conduct and attitude must be above reproach. He must not be a womanizer and he must be “utterly single minded in his devotion to his wife. If he is not married, he is not the type who is flirtatious.” (MacArthur, Answering Key Questions About Elders, p. 14).
In Roman culture it was not only common, but considered socially acceptable for a man to have a wife for bearing legitimate children and “mistresses” for personal pleasure. Immorality was a part of pagan worship and was rampant throughout the culture. Both James and Paul charged the Gentiles to avoid moral misconduct (Acts 15:20; 1Cor 6:16-18). This understanding of the phrase avoids the two extremes of making divorce an unpardonable sin for church leaders and of lightly excusing moral lapses of leaders. A single, married, or divorced man must be considered on the basis of where he is in his relationship with God and his wife. The institution of marriage is still held high, yet it is kept in balance with the grace and forgiveness of God.

 

Bingo.....too true! I agree

 

ditto

 

OK. OP is a troll. But anyone want to respond to my two LENGTHY posts? I happen to believe them to be pretty Biblical...

He may have started it bad, but does that preclude us from finishing it well...

 

I agree with the portions I read. I must admit I glaced over it quickly during my break. What I noticed, and agree with completely, as I feel it to be biblical is:
"All we know from scripture is that Paul was single at the time First Corinthians was written.
Concerning the issue of divorce and remarriage:
1. God’s original plan was - one man, one woman, one lifetime (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6).
2. Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage on the basis of “immorality” (Matt 19:3-12; Matt 1:19).
3. Paul allowed divorce and remarriage on the basis of desertion by an unbeliever (1Cor 7:8-9, 12-15, 39).
Two further issues must be considered here:
1. Was the divorce justified, or allowed, according to Biblical teachings on the matter; and,
2. Was the divorce prior to salvation and has repentance taken place and reconciliation sought? One could also ask, if the divorce was after salvation, is the forgiveness of God less available for the saint than for the sinner? (Rom 5:8-10)"

 

Thank you RJ, for clear teaching on divorce. This will solve the problem of the troll's teaching in the OP.

(Course it doesn't hurt that your teaching is in line with my own belief's. )

As for the troll, my personal belief is that he be given one last chance to join in the discussion's he begins and if he can't comply---OFF WITH HIS HE---POSTING PRIVLEDGES!!!!

This is a debate forum. If you won't debate then you shouldn't be posting.

 

It's called trolling.

 

From the Baptist Board rules,

 

</font>[/QUOTE]What is amazing is that all of us know that it's absurd...and he might be believing what he types....

 

With the exception of rjprince, most posters on this thread have used a ball bat on Mr. Sanderson. Regardless of how wrong Mr. Sanderson may be, there is no call for professing Christians, I assume, to spend three pages of bandwidth on bashing some poor misguided individual. IMHO, the critics of Mr. Sanderson acted as badly or worse than Mr. Sanderson did in his alleged trolling. Bashing Mr. Sanderson, without addressing the divorce question, is off topic and a violation of the board rules for which Mr. Sanderson was roundly criticized and pummeled. Shame!

 

ahh, and now you are bashing us.

 

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by permit. Does it mean to allow or does it mean to approve? These are distinctly different and separate ideas.

Does God allow divorce? Yes, obviously but this is not the same as approving (i.e. endorse, support, agree, etc.) it. He even commanded it in Ezra 10.

On the other hand, consider polygamy. God obviously never approved of polygamy because Christ clearly stated that God’s original intent and will was one woman and one man (Matt. 19:9). However, many men whom God mightily used and blessed were polygamists (e.g. David, Solomon, Gideon, et. al. So, he allowed (permitted) it but He did not endorse it.

This is your inference and reasoning, not an explicit statement of Scripture. Man’s reasoning, although ostensibly using Scripture, is not on the same level and of the same authority as God’s revelation, the Bible. I do not necessarily subscribe to your logic.

Agreed!

Nonsense. You don’t understand the Biblical view of marriage. How do you know that Deut. 24 is the betrothal period? The Scripture doesn’t say betrothal period. That is simply your inference and interpretation to match your own other preconceived notions. To be Biblical, one must let the Scripture speak for itself in context.

Marriage is the vow, the covenant, not the sex act. Joseph and Mary were husband and wife living together even though they did not have sexual relations for arguable nine months. Man and woman are married when the vow is made (i.e. covenant established), not when the sex act is performed. Some married folks cannot physical have sex. Marriage is a covenant of companionship (Mal. 2:14-16), not copulation.

Now, just how do you know this? The Scripture doesn’t say it. This is just your own inference. Again, you must define whether divorce is a sin or the remarriage is a sin. I Corinthians 7 clearly allows divorce (i.e. separation) when an unbeliever abandons his or her believing spouse. Understand there was no separation without divorce as we know it today.

Yes, however this is another issue.

The phrase “husband of one wife” is literally “a one woman man.” Can a widowed and remarried man qualify to be a pastor? How so? Where is your Scripture? Also, see Ezekiel 44:22.

There is an interesting parallel here of “a one man woman.” Yet, the emphasis in this passage is remarriage.

Yes, it exists and it existed in OT/NT Jewry. It is called polyandry. Perhaps you should rethink this argument.

What about polygamy? It existed in both OT and NT.

Finally, Pastor, if you want to be eminently Biblical, let's hear you argue your case by rightly dividing the Word relatively free of your own preconceived ideas. Let the Scriptures speak! Otherwise, it is mere man's opinion, tradition and doctrine.