Featured Proof or preference

1 Timothy 3: 2 and 12

Husband of one wife, or faithful to the current wife (implies multiple marriages separated by divorces)?

 

This is one set of verses that I suggest the NIV has chased after popular opinion rather than the perfect truth.

Twice in Matthew this topic is addressed. (Matthew 5 and 19)

Neither place is suggesting divorce is permitted following the consumption of the marriage.

 

perhaps you respond as did those of whom Moses had to present and not as Christ?

 

Very ignorant response.

you obvious have limited understanding of the verses in Matthew.

 

To consider ANY passage in Matthew in proper application, it must be placed in context of the thinking of the Jews. This principle is also true with James and Hebrews. Leaving out that contextual consideration can and has been shown, even on the BB, to lead to erroneous conclusions.

For example the presentation that some human can prevent entry into heaven using a reference to Matthew.

To place adulterers as an exception citing Matthew would then negate the authority of God concerning consummation - “no man put asunder”

 

Too often, believers grab some word(s) in a verse and cling to it irrespective of the context both textually and culturally. Perhaps that is done by some who have posted on the thread.

When I started this thread I figured some would gravitate to the statements mentioned above found in Matthew. Didn’t take long.

For those who read but do not post, perhaps it is prudent to understanding the words “except adultery” as found in Matthew.

First, Hebrew marriage among the Jews of that day were extremely different then centuries later. The marriage involved these basic differences:

• A contractual public ceremony (typically arranged) was performed. Such removed both from the marketplace of being available for any other relationship.
• The wife would return after the ceremony to the father’s (or family head) house and there to remain in wait for the groom.
• The groom was to go to his family home and add to it thereby preparing a place for his bride.
• When the father (or head of the family) of the groom approved and declared the dwelling place for the bride complete, the groom returned to the bride’s place and took her from there to his own place.
• At that time the marriage was consummated and the “two became one flesh,” God uniting them - “let no man put asunder.”

Second, Adultery in either the bride or groom that fell between the time of the public contract and the later time of consumption was the “except” Christ acknowledges as acceptable grounds for divorce.

Examples:

Joseph was willing to put Mary aside privately rather than making a public spectacle of her.
Parables of the ten virgins
Example of Christ and the church.​

Therefore, using Matthew as an excuse in the modern use is blatant disregard for the teaching of Scripture concerning acceptance of divorce.

The problem this thread was to address should not concern itself with Matthew in clarification of principles concerning acceptable divorce.

Rather, This thread is about the matter of interpretation of Timothy.

Is it appropriate to insert “one woman at a time” (removing polygamy which was NOT practiced regularly at that time) or “one wife” (until death do us part) as the standard communicated by Paul?


Seems to me that Paul is stressing commitment in the picture of Christ and His Church should be portrayed unblemished to the worldly.

That one divorced or having a polyamory/polygamy live is excluded As being unqualified.

Does not Scripture teach one who “marries” the divorced person lives in an adulterous relationship?

 

In the gentile marriage when consummation happens more often prior to formal public declaration of agreement, there is NO grounds for divorce.

The unbeliever may certainly choose a different course, that conforms to Paul’s instructions for believers.

Not true. Two things

The convent relationship in salvation is not man to God but God to man. Believers teach the message of reconciliation (as Paul stated).

The vows taken in the English gentile ceremony are vows made to God concerning not the partner to partner contract but the vow of conduct irregardless of the partner’s mental, emotional, physical, ... condition. That vow to God is NOT reliant upon the partner fulfilling some contract, but upon the promised made to God concerning their own conduct.

 

Is that the result of your view?

Mine has never brought such results.

One, who is committed to God, His love and life daily lived through them and fulfilling the vows made to Him concerning this matter, does not result in such behavior as you describe.

Rather, such is quite evidenced in the shallow presentation you seem to have agreed to hold. A presentation that allows for any “except” after God has joined the two as “one flesh” does not follow Scriptures.