|
Post by emy on Apr 23, 2009 11:29:40 GMT -5
If Jesus gave them permission for divorcing wives and remarrying, then why did his disciples make this statement: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." ? If Jesus left the commandment the same as the OT, why would there be any other questions?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 23, 2009 11:46:56 GMT -5
I would forgive the poor gal for burning the biscut And I would eat that burnt biscuit and smile and thank her for making it for me!! Scott
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Apr 23, 2009 11:50:55 GMT -5
So Jesus naming it as adultery was shocking to the disciples: Matt. 19:9 And I say unto you, 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. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. "Put away" does not mean the same as "divorce," in the Bible. Divorce was separation from board and bed with a Bill of divorcement which allowed for remarriage, which the law in Deut provided in cases of divorce. "Putting away" was an ugly, mean, selfish practice some Jewish men were doing--that of kicking out their wives and NOT giving them a Bill of Divorce as the OT provided for. Without that Bill of D, neither the husband or the wife could marry again, without committing adultery, bcs they were still bound to the spouse until there was a Bill of Divorcement given to the wife. When they "put away" a wife, rather than divorce her, (i.e. kicked her out with nothing) they didn't have to give back her dowry. For more info on "putting away" read Walter Callison's article here: www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/remarriage.phpBut at the time of those laws, men were allowed to have more than one wife weren't they? So the man wasn't bound.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 23, 2009 11:54:14 GMT -5
One thing about divorce/remarriage that doesn't concern what the Bible says: When we observe our society since it has become widely acceptable, do we see an improvement in our family life, especially for children?
My opinion? No
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 23, 2009 11:55:00 GMT -5
The old, and very literal American Standard Version always translated it "put away." The King James Version translated it "put away" ten out of the eleven times Jesus used it. That eleventh instance seems to be the source of the problem. I agree with your analysis, Cherie. Here's the crux of the problem: Is the KJV the inspired Word of God? If so, God means the word in English in that critical Matthew passage to be DIVORCE. If not, then we have to answer the question of when God quit putting his stamp of approval on the rewrites and translations. The scriptures were all in a deep state of flux early on...that clause that says "except for the cause of fornication" was a late addition, we know, not original to the gospel...so maybe it's all a moot point anyway? That God quit putting his stamp of approval on the changes/translations before that date?
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Apr 23, 2009 11:56:24 GMT -5
Okay, I don't know what parts of the law have been thrown out, but you can't with any intellectual honesty claim any part of the OT law without claiming all of it. And in the OT men were allowed multiple wives and concubines (not sure why a man would want to--have enough trouble keeping one happy!!!!!!) But seriously woman in the OT where basically property--we don't and shouldn't cling to that. If fornication is any sexual activity outside the marriage, then why doesn't Jesus's exception hold true within the 2x2's? I think that the laws that Jesus taught were nonjudgemental, compassionate and loving and that isn't what is taught within the 2x2. When I was divorced and still "in" there was a young mother of two who was also divorced living about 30 miles south of me (different field of workers--I had several tell me why don't you just marry X that way both of you will have a spouse and your both professing so that may be a plus with the workers. HUH? Talk about an arranged marriage. And these were well meaning people who actually had compasion for me, but it was surreal. that would have been a marriage made in h--l, not that X wasn't a good person, it was that we weren't didn't know we were compatable and I didn't want to get into a situation that might make me think we were when we weren't--similar to an earlier poster experience with her brother. Before I started dating my wife, I dated a lady from the Nazarene's--we discussed religion--and she asked the question "so if I marry you, I'm automatically tainted in your church why would I want to do that?" I had no answer. You know, Terry, I have been thinking about the discussion between the two of us.....and I know we've both been "through the wringer" on this issue. But, I was thinking, if we are going to discount the Law of God as recorded in the OT because "Jesus changed all of that somehow", why is divorce, remarriage, incest, or anything else given there even a problem we need to worry about? Does that make any sense to you either? Or, should we give respect to its "guidance"? Regardless of how you feel about the guidance of the Old Testament Law, I think we can both agree that the F & W (and a number of other churches) just don't have the best interest of the parties involved. I'm very happy to see the progress you've made through the challenge you've had in life with this issue (d & r) as you've shared with us over the years on this Board. I always read the posts when I see your name! Best! In His Love, Edy P.S. I think you would be interested in a thread that was on this Board some years ago (I believe Rob Oxenbridge started it) on polygamy in our day. (Maybe someone can find it.) I don't believe the Bible has ever banned it. Even in the times of multiple wives, and man still had to give a wife a "proper bill of divorce" before he put her out of his harem. I've been wondering lately if "we" could get another wife at our house. I need the help LOL! Thanks for the kind words Edy, I always enjoy your posts as well. I remain conflicted on the guidence of the OT. A poster on this thread said the practice polygamy died out slowly and wasn't used any more in Jesus's day. Would that then mean that the rules change with time? We do agree that the 2x2's aren't very compassionate and very inconsistant--the rules change depending on where you live.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 23, 2009 12:01:22 GMT -5
One thing about divorce/remarriage that doesn't concern what the Bible says: When we observe our society since it has become widely acceptable, do we see an improvement in our family life, especially for children? My opinion? No Yes, an interesting point. Society of necessity causes some to suffer for the greater good. Every time we stop at a red light at an intersection, we are inconvenienced for the sake of general laws that we consider to be "good." Undoubtably, disallowing divorce/remarriage has positive consequences, since it discourages breaking up homes. Those people who suffer because of the "rule" must accept their place in the scheme of things, I guess. A battered wife who stays with her abusive husband can find solace in that she is helping contribute to a standard that helps other marriages stay together.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 23, 2009 12:04:53 GMT -5
I would forgive the poor gal for burning the biscut PUH-leeze! Women are not slaves who need "forgiveness" for burning their master's biscuits. And I would eat that burnt biscuit and smile and thank her for making it for me!! Smart man. Likely next time she'd make extra sure she got them right and would serve them with a smile. freespirit
|
|
|
Post by l on Apr 23, 2009 12:06:19 GMT -5
If Jesus gave them permission for divorcing wives and remarrying, then why did his disciples make this statement: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." ? If Jesus left the commandment the same as the OT, why would there be any other questions? Like Cherie was saying but when a bill for D was given things changed
|
|
|
Post by l on Apr 23, 2009 12:07:36 GMT -5
I would forgive the poor gal for burning the biscut And I would eat that burnt biscuit and smile and thank her for making it for me!! Scott I just happen to like burned toast
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 23, 2009 13:43:27 GMT -5
If Jesus gave them permission for divorcing wives and remarrying, then why did his disciples make this statement: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." ? If Jesus left the commandment the same as the OT, why would there be any other questions? One possibility might be that returning the wives dowry would have a VERY negative effect on the financial affairs of the husband...so granting a Bill of Divorcement would be viewed as a bad financial move. Similar to when a married couple owns a business and they both work in it--it's difficult to work out a Divorce agreement. Also, when the business is "split" financially, it may not survive. There are other reasons why the disciples may have said what they did.
|
|
|
Post by scarletto on Apr 23, 2009 13:55:04 GMT -5
If Jesus gave them permission for divorcing wives and remarrying, then why did his disciples make this statement: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." ? If Jesus left the commandment the same as the OT, why would there be any other questions? My take is that there have always been questions....why...? Because human marriage is not perfect. That's the reality. Humans are not perfect and human marriage has often [simply]: FAILED. Thus, there have always been issues, problems, and yes; questions. If human marriage was a perfect institution, things would be much different. The divorce rate wouldn't be so high. Home life would be more stable for many. But the fact of the matter is that since the dawn of mankind, many marriages do not end up happy or healthy...which has stimulated much problem solving; the need for counselors, the need for questions/answers, the need for a bill of divorcement, the need for separations, child custody laws, you name it, much has arisen because of the needs of people in earthly marriage. No one is exempt from having a problem. The many problems that humans have created and/or encountered in the institution of marriage has also created some new and sometimes controversial solutions to the whole concept of marriage. In our human efforts to problem solve, many have decided to just fore-go marriage and live together. The attitude is: why get married? So...we have more and more people cohabitating instead of getting married.....and our society has gradually changed as a result. Since the dawn of mankind, people have highly regarded freedom and resisted tyranny. People have also highly regarded boundaries and have yearned for respect and proper, kind treatment of one another. Of course, it would be wonderful if a "live and let live" society begat people who actually are kind to one another and do not hurt one another. But, people sin. They miss the mark. Laws were created because of the sin of people. As new problems arise, new laws have been passed...If people were perfect, I guess there would be no need for laws. But, obviously, people are not perfect and in the OT, we see that God attended to the imperfection of His People by giving His Law to Moses. I respect the Law and always have. But, the Old Law was fulfilled by Christ and of course we are thankful that we no longer have to go out and slay the perfect spotless beef or goat or sheep and burn it over an open fire. ahhhh! So, what's my point? Well, just that questions are okay and we see the Jesus had lots of questions fired at Him. I feel that Christ was very patient in answering questions. Imagine how Jesus must have felt and the thoughts that were going through His mind? Maybe Christ Himself felt that people were making a big deal over something that shouldn't be such a big deal. Maybe Jesus would rather people have kept it simple.....If you are married, stay married and don't even look at another to lust after them.....don't commit adultery in your mind....keep your thoughts pure. Paul the Apostle nailed it when he gave advice on marriage. He basically said that if you really need to marry, then by all means, get married, but that marriage brings with it many challenges ........... sometimes much grief, so my take is that he was saying, "Many folks would be better off single."... Paul was way ahead of his time..... But humans seem to not be able to accept the concept that they can be just as happy and fulfilled [if not more so]: single/unmarried. Humans seem to be ADDICTED to the human marriage. Why, I don't really know, except it's as if they are seeking fulfillment and thinking they will find it in another human & that they will find fulfillment in human earthly marriage....that GETTING married will somehow give them completion. Well, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't...as statistics show, it's about 50/50. I believe the divorce rate has PROVEN that humans do not find fulfillment in other humans. Thank-you and God Bless! -scarlett
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Apr 23, 2009 14:24:46 GMT -5
It says in Harukalemiah chapter 9 verse 18, "Now let this be known that no one shall enter that state of sleep in which his eyes move rapidly for his dream states may become dishonorable, for it is of Lucifer. And lo, if thou shalt enter that state of sleep, let ye be stoned."
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 23, 2009 14:27:57 GMT -5
DC, I certainly had NO thought of an abused woman staying with her abuser for ANY reason. The discussion centers more around "did Jesus accept or allow that divorced people can remarry?"
Someone else mentioned that it seems our society is hung up on needing to be married and not able to believe that a single (or divorced) person can be content. I think it may be connected to the idea that sex is a requirement. Well, those who don't hold that marriage is important to have sex solve both problems, I guess. But there's still the problem of lack of commitment, which also has a negative effect on society, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 23, 2009 14:36:39 GMT -5
DC, I certainly had NO thought of an abused woman staying with her abuser for ANY reason. The discussion centers more around "did Jesus accept or allow that divorced people can remarry?" Someone else mentioned that it seems our society is hung up on needing to be married and not able to believe that a single (or divorced) person can be content. I think it may be connected to the idea that sex is a requirement. Well, those who don't hold that marriage is important to have sex solve both problems, I guess. But there's still the problem of lack of commitment, which also has a negative effect on society, IMO. emy, I'm sorry, I kind of knowingly misconstrued your message. I have a habit of bringing up the extreme in cases like this to prove the foolishness of hard and fast rules. on D&R, I think often of the man with a withered hand. That's what happens to many marriages; nothing dramatic, people just change, the marriage withers. The law said have no compassion, do not heal the man (it was the Sabbath when Jesus passed by) and leave him maimed for life. Jesus had little use for stupid, incompassionate rules. Gave him a new hand.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 23, 2009 14:38:41 GMT -5
Is it a sin to have a wet dream? The answer USED to be "yes." A wet dream made one unclean, required purification. When Jesus superceded the law, he probably had this particular issue in mind.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 23, 2009 15:51:52 GMT -5
on D&R, I think often of the man with a withered hand. That's what happens to many marriages; nothing dramatic, people just change, the marriage withers. The law said have no compassion, do not heal the man (it was the Sabbath when Jesus passed by) and leave him maimed for life. Jesus had little use for stupid, incompassionate rules. Gave him a new hand. Was it the law, or rather the interpretation of it that had no mercy? Jesus said "go and learn what this means: I will have mercy and not sacrifice". The legalists amongst us today are hung up on sacrifice at the expense of mercy, just like the legalists in Jesus' day.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 23, 2009 16:17:21 GMT -5
Was it the law, or rather the interpretation of it that had no mercy? Doesn't matter. One and the same. Does the "law" say no D&R, or do we just interpret it that way? Either way, the law is in conflict with compassion, and Jesus would prefer to lift above that.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Apr 23, 2009 16:42:06 GMT -5
Was it the law, or rather the interpretation of it that had no mercy? Doesn't matter. One and the same. Does the "law" say no D&R, or do we just interpret it that way? Either way, the law is in conflict with compassion, and Jesus would prefer to lift above that. It gets back to the God you know and believe in. Earlier I quoted Bertrand Russell and here is where it applies. If you believe in a kind, gracious and loving God, you will see what He was saying here (interpret), and you offer grace to those D&R. If you believe in a cruel God you will find your dealings with these people most cruel because that is the God you believe in. I agree DC, Jesus would prefer to lift it above that as it says Jesus brought grace and truth, while Moses brought the law.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 23, 2009 17:10:51 GMT -5
Jesus fulfilled the law in a compassionate way.
The legalists understood man was for the sabbath, and made his life a misery in order to comply with their "standards".
Jesus understood the sabbath was for man, to give him rest from his labours and help him focus on what is most important in life.
In the same way marriage is for mankind, a committment between a man and a woman for their benefit and that of any offspring they have.
The fruits of the D&R policy that has resulted from legalists not understanding scripture or the power of God are often not pretty.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Apr 23, 2009 17:20:22 GMT -5
"Put away" does not mean the same as "divorce," in the Bible. Divorce was separation from board and bed with a Bill of divorcement which allowed for remarriage, which the law in Deut provided in cases of divorce. "Putting away" was an ugly, mean, selfish practice some Jewish men were doing--that of kicking out their wives and NOT giving them a Bill of Divorce as the OT provided for. Without that Bill of D, neither the husband or the wife could marry again, without committing adultery, bcs they were still bound to the spouse until there was a Bill of Divorcement given to the wife. When they "put away" a wife, rather than divorce her, (i.e. kicked her out with nothing) they didn't have to give back her dowry. For more info on "putting away" read Walter Callison's article here: www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/remarriage.phpBut at the time of those laws, men were allowed to have more than one wife weren't they? So the man wasn't bound. Actually, the man was "bound" to every wife he had, and the bill of divorce was necessary for every wife he "unbound". Women were not able to bind themselves to more than one man. E
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Apr 23, 2009 17:31:21 GMT -5
DC, I certainly had NO thought of an abused woman staying with her abuser for ANY reason. The discussion centers more around "did Jesus accept or allow that divorced people can remarry?" Someone else mentioned that it seems our society is hung up on needing to be married and not able to believe that a single (or divorced) person can be content. I think it may be connected to the idea that sex is a requirement. Well, those who don't hold that marriage is important to have sex solve both problems, I guess. But there's still the problem of lack of commitment, which also has a negative effect on society, IMO. Emy! Humans are sexual creatures....them and billy goats go for the pleasure of it and not always for procreation! It was heard said by an overseer now long gone that "once a man gets a taste of that, he can hardly ever not be satisfied to do without." That said, it is much harder on most men to be denied then it is for women...although there are exceptions in either sex..... A lot of sexual conditioning goes on in the world around us and most times we're not even aware of it....sex is used to advertise products, for entertainment, for business and even for education....perhaps if churches ever got to using sex to stimulate people there'd be some agreement on which church is the right church....now don't all of you run backwards at this thought. It is "cold" thinking that causes the most disagreements, but "warm" thinking brings agreements and the pleasures into play.
|
|
|
Post by hippyatheart on Apr 23, 2009 17:42:27 GMT -5
But at the time of those laws, men were allowed to have more than one wife weren't they? So the man wasn't bound. Actually, the man was "bound" to every wife he had, and the bill of divorce was necessary for every wife he "unbound". Women were not able to bind themselves to more than one man. E Polygamy didn't work in my marriage. When my ex husband decided he needed more than one woman, and acted on that need, I was left out in the cold....not too unlike the wife that was put away.. being a polygamous wife was no cake walk. Let's get real here. Polygamy might have been great in meeting some physical provisional needs and for a man to expand his wealth, his seed and his estate, but for women, well, I just don't think it was the ideal. We don't read much about whether or not Jesus had an intimate woman or two in His life> What does that tell me? Perhaps that the spiritual part of Jesus was first and foremost, that His relationship with God and that doing God's Will was number one. All other relationships: secondary. What we are really looking at here is this: To date there is not a utopian society that graces the earth- humanly speaking. Are there societies that shoot for utopia? Yes, of course...that's the goal of many isn't it?>to be perfect and complete...to get a taste of Heaven. And we are afforded a taste of Heaven from time to time. We can attain to be as perfect and complete is Christ as possible, but in our human power and in our own doing, it's only going to be so perfect. Thus, we give thanks for God's mercy and grace and we praise God for His mighty great power. We attempt to make others perfect or as perfect as possible through teaching, example, exhortation, correction, constructive criticism, peer pressure, etc. But we are also called to respect other people and respect the individual work that God does on a one to one basis. There is no perfect human marriage. The sooner we understand that concept the better. You take vows, you honor those vows for the best, for better or worse. Sometimes, one partner breaks the vows and the other partner doesn't. Sometimes, one partner does things that drive the other partner in the direction of breaking a marriage vow. If people were honest they would take ownership for their own stuff and what contributes to the break down of a marriage. You have to look in the mirror and understand that sometimes we are not easy to get along with or live with. Sometimes we are not getting our needs met within the marriage and feel sort of put away. I have no idea with goes on in private in most marriages. At best I know what I see and that's all I can go on. Again, if we are going to "err", is it best to err on the side of mercy or on the side of zero tolerance? Well, alls I know is that folks have tolerated a lot from me and I don't deserve it and I know I have asked to be forgiven of much. I MUST forgive others as well. hah
|
|
|
Post by whatnow on Apr 23, 2009 18:00:24 GMT -5
After 12 pages I'm still waiting for something that jumps out and presents itself as a fair and unbiased answer- to some I give credit for attempting to sound fair. Why does this topic have so many riled up? Isn't God the final decsion maker when it comes to our salvation? Didn't Jesus stoop and write in the dirt trying to avoid those who wanted to judge? Doesn't the verse say"judge not lest ye be judged"? How many feel so strong about condemming people who have had a relationship that didn't work,and then found someone that made their life complete, but yet there maybe some other part of the scriptures that they don't agree with, that they don't follow? LET GOD DO THE JUDGING!
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Apr 23, 2009 18:09:46 GMT -5
After 12 pages I'm still waiting for something that jumps out and presents itself as a fair and unbiased answer- to some I give credit for attempting to sound fair. Why does this topic have so many riled up? Isn't God the final decsion maker when it comes to our salvation? Didn't Jesus stoop and write in the dirt trying to avoid those who wanted to judge? Doesn't the verse say"judge not lest ye be judged"? How many feel so strong about condemming people who have had a relationship that didn't work,and then found someone that made their life complete, but yet there maybe some other part of the scriptures that they don't agree with, that they don't follow? LET GOD DO THE JUDGING! You just brought out the one thing that Jesus did show a positive thing about the adultery issue, I'm not sure how much this particular case would really be into the D&R issue, but NONETHELESS, Jesus showed love and mercy....He also showed that one human is not to judge another in an issue that someone thinks it is worthy of stoning to death....No man has that right.....Now I'm not talking about capital punishment for murdering as God said how that was to be done.....limb for limb, eye for eye and life for life..... But I'm talking about something that is actually a sin against one's self as well as perhaps defrauding someone else....Man is not to judge that at all...because they are not free of sins just as bad. JMO
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Apr 23, 2009 19:20:41 GMT -5
It just came to me that perhaps and I'm saying "perhaps", the reason for a "tightening" in the truth's fellowship on D&R is because that is one thing they feel quite liberal at doing so simply because the workers and objecting friends have had to face the facts of CSA within the fellowship as a whole and they've been pointed at for having harbored the perpatrators of known CSA cases and some for years. It is all an unconscious level of get even though I'm still only saying perhaps or possibly. But it is coming so hard on the tale of the CSA snafus, etc. one has to wonder...though at the same time we admit that there's been hardliners all along! Just a thought. It is only human to want to exact a pound of flesh when a pound is extracted!
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Apr 23, 2009 19:29:05 GMT -5
In reading all this, and commenting, I'm reminded of hymn that we often sing, usually at the end of a mass--sort of the theme we want to leave with. "By our love they shall know we are Christians, by our love, by our love. I know my "worldly" friends and neighbors were amazed when I told them my church forbid my remarriage and then when I was kicked out. They certainly didn't see any love.
I must point out however that there were a few, who stood by through it all--one couple even attended my wedding.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 23, 2009 22:01:47 GMT -5
I thought some about this verse today...Love, Joy, etc. are fruits of the Spirit...
I wondered: Does the lack of these fruits signify something important...in a person...in a group...a church? I know it does in a family.
|
|