The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce

BBob:

You have constantly refused to see the point. No, it is not that you do not see the point. You refuse to see it.

Here it is in bold, and if you construe this as yelling, that is your privilege.



JESUS SPEAKING TO A JEWISH AUDIENCE DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO NON-JEWISH AUDIENCES. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTS TO UNDERSTAND IT THIS WAY, AND INSIST THAT THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN, ALL BECAUSE YOU WANT TO JUSTIFY DIVORCE.

IF WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEBODY SAYS SOMETHING WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND CONTEXT. IF SOMEBODY LOGGED IN WHO IS AN UNBELIEVER AND SEES US ARGUING ABOUT DIVORCE, HE WILL NOT UNDERSTAND WHY UNLESS HE UNDERSTANDS THE CONTEXT IN WHICH WE ARE ARGUING.

AND THE CONTEXT IS THIS: YOU ARE FOR DIVORCE. I AM NOT FOR DIVORCE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER THE TIMES WHEN THINGS WERE A LITTLE MORE DECENT IN THIS AMERICAN SOCIETY. BUT THERE WAS ONCE A TIME WHEN PEOPLE GOT ENGAGED.
A GUY GOES TO THE GIRL'S PARENTS, TELLS THEM HE LOVES HER, AND THAT SHE LOVES HIM, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO GET MARRIED, AND ASSUMING ALL IS WELL, IN A PARTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE PARENTS ANNOUNCE THE ENGAGEMENT OF THEIR DAUGHTER TO THIS GUY.
NOW, EXCEPT FOR MARRIAGE, AND SEX IN THE MARRIAGE BED, AS FAR AS EVERYBODY ELSE WAS CONCERNED WHO KNOWS ABOUT THIS ENGAGEMENT, THIS GUY AND THIS GIRL ARE PRACTICALLY HUSBAND AND WIFE.
NOBODY IS SHOCKED IF THEY SEE THEM KISSING IN PUBLIC, OR HOLDING HANDS, AND ARE ALWAYS TOGETHER. IF THE GUY OR THE GIRL FALLS FOR SOMEBODY ELSE, IT IS ALMOST AS IF THIS PARTY NEVER SHOWED UP IN THE WEDDING AND EVERYBODY FEELS BAD ABOUT IT !

UNFORTUNATELY, IN THESE TIMES, THINGS HAVE CHANGED, EVEN AMONG THE JEWS !
A GUY OR A GIRL LIKE EACH OTHER, THEY GO TO BED, THE BOY OR THE GIRL MOVE IN, THE PARENTS KNOW ABOUT IT (AND LAUGH ABOUT IT), AND IF THE LIVING TOGETHER DOESN'T WORK, IT'S BYE AND NO HURT FEELINGS !!

THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY.
I NEVER SAID THAT BECAUSE JESUS SPOKE TO A JEWISH AUDIENCE WHO KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT, THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE TTHERS !

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SHOVELED THAT DIRT AND WANT US EAT IT !

 

The NT is for all christians. Otherwise how much of it was written to US when the writer was speaking to someone other then US. None of those books are addressed to me, how about the rest of you?

 

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

Too long maybe :laugh:

 

I understand (and I may be wrong) that only the news and politics forums have a three page limit.
All others can beat on the horse until it is very, very dead, and then revive the horse to beat up on it some more.:laugh:

I just hate it when people deliberately mislead others who may be reading the posts. It's childish.

None of us in the anti-divorce side as far as I can remember and as far as I know ever said that because something was said to a Jewish or Gentile audience it doesn't apply to non-Gentiles or non-Jewish readers or believers.

As a matter of fact, we quote those very Scriptures to show this non-Jewish board that divorce is and always will be a no-no, and remarriage is and will always be regarded by God as adultery.

 

Indeed the Old Testament is for ALL of us as well but not in the same way as it was to those that received it. Example, we do not practice the ceremonial law due to the Lord's work on the cross and our understanding of that work. Yet, there are undoubtedly things for us to learn and principles to be gleaned from those passages.

NNE that I have seen is saying the entire Bible is not for all of us in some manner, just not the same manner for all peoples of all time. Any Christian practices this principle in their life otherwise they would be offering blood sacrifices on an alter.

To not understand the recipient is to not understand how it relates to you. This principle is obvious to most - example Col. 3.19 Husbands , love [your] wives, Now I know that was given to me, but my wife knowing it is to males is not going to run off to California and marry a woman so that she can love her wife.

We all pick and choose how we view Scripture based on, in part, out understanding of the recipient.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

But, hey, wait a minute. I hope this doesn't happen to Christians, but the way "coming out" is happening in the unbelieving world, that can be a possibility.

You know, somebody's wife decides she's a closet homo and "comes out" and leaves the husband and run off to marry another homo.

 

Our local access channel has a homosexual church on every weekend or maybe it was the hallmark channel here before it became hallmark - one of them anyway. Total justification for their lifestyle not a problem when you twist Scripture to fit your needs.

 

Yeah, I hear ya.
I've got DTV and they've got one channel I wish would go away.
The Logo channel.
Oh,yes, there's the channel where they test women on how good they smooch.
No wonder we hear of kids getting raped by 8 and 10 year-olds.

 

I thought it was 30 pages.

 

I am quite aware of this, and never said differently.

 

We are looking at one Scripture and asking ourselves: Is it applicable, in its context, for us today? You respond saying that the NT is for all Christians. Let us consider your logic:

Matthew 22:24-25 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

Now, Donna, you hear of this situation as it affects you. Your husband comes home from work and you give him this news. "Now, sweetie, your brother has just died, and you know that they have no children. The Lord says that you need to go over there to his wife, comfort her, marry her, and then have sexual relations with her, so that she is albe to have children and raise them up on her own.

This is NT without context--the same as Mat.5:32.

The NT was written for Christians. But quite evidently all of it is not applicable to Christians. There are many other examples that I could give you. Context is very important. You are leaving out the context surrounding Matthew 5:32, Neither does Brother Bob consdier its context. He makes the same mistake.

 

Then of course we could just pick out the stuff not for us, I get my choice you get your choice. Divorce becomes no longer a problem.

 

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Right, We study. We study to find out the historical context, the over-all context, the immediate context. We study to find out who is speaking to who and why. We just don't look at one verse and then say AHA, see what that verse says. It doesn't work that way. What is written is written for a purpose. What is the purpose for which it was written?

Who said: "What thou doest, do quckly,"
Who did he say it to? How does that apply to me?

Who said: Woman behold they son.
Who did he say it to? How does it apply to me?

Who said "It is finished!" Why? What was the purpose?
What have I finished? How is it applicable to me?

We can go on and on. Not everything that is said is directly applicable to me. It is all for our learning and understanding.

Matthew 5:32 is not directly applicable to you or I either. It is applicable to the Jews. The book was written to a Jewish audience. He at that time was speaking to the Jews. He was speaking about Jewish laws. He was speaking about the Mosaic law of divorce and why God gave Moses permission to divorce. In that context he gives "except it be for fornication." Just before that He had already said:
"But from the beginning it was not so.
The "fornication" referred to is demonstrated in Matthew chapter one in the lives of Mary and Joseph, where Joseph was going to divorce Mary for the cause of fornication during their betrothal period before they were married. That is why it is not applcable to us today. We don't keep that custom (as a general rule). Joseph would have had every right to divorce Mary on the grounds of fornication except for the intervention of an angel, explaining to Mary that the conception of the child was supernatural--conceived of the Holy Spirit, and was not fornication at all. Thus there was no cause for fornication in that case. If it had been another couple in the same situation there would have been a case for divorce--in the betrothal period.

 

2timothy 3:
16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

There is something for us to learn and apply from scripture.

 

Jesus did not command it. It was OT law.
Jesus did not command divorce. He commands not to divorce under any circumstance.
He says that if you divorce and remarry you are an adulterer/adulteress. How clear can it be!

The one paralells the other.
If we say that "all the NT is for us" (as Donna did) then why not admit to the Jewish custom of raising up seed for the deceased brother's wife. That is what the Jewish law taught. That is what they repeated in the NT.
The exception clause in Matthew 5:32 likewise has to do with the Jewish custom of betrothal. Note that both of these passages are found in Matthew and deal with Jewsih customs.

 

]

Correct. As a general rule.

However, I have known a few men in my country when I was younger and before my conversion. They were all Roman Catholics, like I was. From the same neighborhood. a couple of them were classmates.

Let me relate one. His name is Ramon. I will not name his wife.
They were childhood sweethearts, all the way to after high school.
We were all sure they were going to get married.
He was allowed by her parents to sleep in their house, she in his house by his parents, and they remained chaste.
Kissing, yes, but no further.
Then they went to college. Different schools.
The wife met this dashing gigolo.
She got pregnant.
She gave birth.
Ramon was heartbroken.
His parents wanted to call off the informal engagement.
He did not.
They married while still in college.
After college the father of the baby shows up. Begins following Ramon's wife around. I know. We beat up on him. He quit.
Turns out something did happen.
No pregnancy this time, but Ramon found out.
We all advised him to quit the marriage. Find another woman.
But he loved her. Kept on.
Today they're still Catholics, but things have changed. They have 5 kids, the first baby by another man being the sixth, and 9 grandchildren.
I would say Ramon was right, and we were all wrong.
Ain't too many men around with his mettle.

 

You think Jesus was teaching multiply wives, adultry?