Divorce and Remarriage

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by n david

Why do you do this? Always. Something is posted and you give some dumb, off the wall response. Like the comment about genitals.

NO he can't divorce his wife for "reading seedy romance novels."

Good grief. How do you read "It in fact includes sexual immorality and "promiscuity of any (every) type" and get "divorce" "for reading seedy romance novels?"

C'mon man.

I know you may not agree with it, but it is there. It's a fact that the word includes more than what you're trying to claim.

In the immortal words of Esaias , Aquila doesn't believe in anything.

Bro, he just comes and posts here to watch the kiddies play.

[Esaias]

It is absolutely clear that interacting with Aquila is nothing but an exercise in futility. The guy is right up there with Bert and some of the others we've had around here.

[Aquila]

Again, so far, just personal insults. That doesn't prove a point, win a debate, or answer deeper questions. That says more about you than me.

Back to topic.

Can anyone explain why they believe that both Mark and Luke omit any "exception clause", yet it is foundational to the idea that divorce and remarriage are perfectly acceptable in God's eyes in certain circumstances?

I contend that the only reason why Matthew includes the "exception clause" is because his audience was Jewish, and their custom required a writ if divorcement just to dissolve a betrothal. Joseph is an example of a man who was about to put his betrothed wife away for fornication, and would have been eligible for remarriage. However, had they consummated and Joseph put her away afterwards, there world be no exception, and Mark and Luke would fully apply as written. The divorce would be sin, and he would sin if he remarried.

With this understanding, all texts are easily made to agree.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by berkeley

Would not be surprised if they are bisexual swingers. Wouldn’t be surprised.

Deplorable.

Such accusations are uncalled for and unwarranted. You're above such behavior. As wrong as you might think me to be, this kind of response is below you.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, so far, just personal insults. That doesn't prove a point, win a debate, or answer deeper questions. That says more about you than me.

Back to topic.

Can anyone explain why they believe that both Mark and Luke omit any "exception clause", yet it is foundational to the idea that divorce and remarriage are perfectly acceptable in God's eyes in certain circumstances?

I contend that the only reason why Matthew includes the "exception clause" is because his audience was Jewish, and their custom required a writ if divorcement just to dissolve a betrothal. Joseph is an example of a man who was about to put his betrothed wife away for fornication, and would have been eligible for remarriage. However, had they consummated and Joseph put her away afterwards, there world be no exception, and Mark and Luke would fully apply as written. The divorce would be sin, and he would sin if he remarried.

With this understanding, all texts are easily made to agree.

I think the answer does not hinge on just those scriptures, but also on scriptures in the OT and the epistles.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by berkeley

Would not be surprised if they are bisexual swingers. Wouldn’t be surprised.

THEY? They who?

[Aquila]

I want to say that I do understand that there is room for multiple interpretations of this passage. I'm in no way dogmatic about it. I do not believe in forcing couples to divorce, because I believe the second marriage (sinful or not) is binding. And while I believe that I Timothy 3:2 establishes grounds to disqualify a remarried divorcee from the official office of bishop/elder/overseer, I do not view those divorcees who serve in this office as illegitimate. Should a church grant leniency, or not interpret I Timothy 3:2 like this and ordain such a person, I praise God with them for their opportunity to serve.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm a hater. God spoke to me last night in prayer on this. He emphasized over and over again that He is God of mercy who forgives and gives grace to the broken. He impressed upon me that someone reading my posts is a divorcee who is remarried and in ministry, and another is feeling the desire to be used in ministry. I want to say that though my interpretation is rather challenging, I do believe in mercy, grace, unmerited favor. God makes a way for those whom He has called where there seems to be no way. And yes, God often uses the most unlikely of people to do the most astounding things in His Kingdom. So, I pray for these unknown individuals and plead the blood over them. Knowing that we serve a God who is rich in tender mercies and divine favor. No matter what has happened to you, no matter what you've done, a broken and contrite spirit He will not despise. Grace has always provided the exceptions that make the rule. For example, King David, when he and his men were hungered, ate of the shew bread with them, which was only lawful for the priests to partake in. God did not despise that action. Why? Because God gave favor to David and his men when most would have said they were unworthy. To most, and according to the letter of the law, they were unqualified. You, child of God, may not be worthy in and of yourself, or qualified, but it is God who declares your worthiness and it is God alone who qualifies you.

Stay humble, stay broken, and seek God's blessing and favor. He will give beauty for ashes, and joy for your sorrow. If you find yourself divorced and remarried I want to say that though things are not perfect, God's grace and mercy can cover the sin of the past, and make your current marriage greater than the former. This little inspirational thought came to mind as I meditated upon the Lord after my prayer and devotion. I want to share it here....

How did you feel the last time a coffee mug slipped from your hands and shattered on your kitchen floor? Probably some combination of surprise and annoyance. If it was an heirloom or a sentimental piece, you may have even felt supremely guilty as you swept up the shards.

In Japan, instead of tossing these pieces in the trash, some craftsmen practice the 500-year-old art of kintsugi, or “golden joinery,” which is a method of restoring a broken piece with a lacquer that is mixed with gold, silver, or platinum.

While the general Western consensus on broken objects is that they have lost their value, practitioners and admirers of kintsugi believe that neverending consumerism is not a spiritually rewarding experience.

The kintsugi method conveys a philosophy not of replacement, but of awe, reverence, and restoration. The gold-filled cracks of a once-broken item are a testament to its history. Shimode points out that “The importance in kintsugi is not the physical appearance, it is… the beauty and the importance [that] stays in the one who is looking at the dish.”

Non-Japanese makers may not realize it, but we practice this philosophy when we see a broken object’s potential, when we upcycle, when we repurpose, when we reincarnate an object that would otherwise likely be thrown away.

God often does the same with us. Many of us have been dropped and broken at one time or another. Many of us have even suffered brokenness by our own choices or actions. However, when we allow ourselves to be humbled and broken, and turn to God, He will not only repair our brokenness, He will mend our broken pieces, as it were with pure gold. In the end, His mending of our brokenness makes us of greater value and of greater beauty in His sight than before we were broken.

So, if anything has troubled you in this discussion, be at peace child of God. You are more beautiful and more valuable than ever in His eyes. Our loving and merciful God isn't through with you yet. He delights to forgive. His mercy endureth forever.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, so far, just personal insults. That doesn't prove a point, win a debate, or answer deeper questions. That says more about you than me.

Back to topic.

Can anyone explain why they believe that both Mark and Luke omit any "exception clause", yet it is foundational to the idea that divorce and remarriage are perfectly acceptable in God's eyes in certain circumstances?

I contend that the only reason why Matthew includes the "exception clause" is because his audience was Jewish, and their custom required a writ if divorcement just to dissolve a betrothal. Joseph is an example of a man who was about to put his betrothed wife away for fornication, and would have been eligible for remarriage. However, had they consummated and Joseph put her away afterwards, there world be no exception, and Mark and Luke would fully apply as written. The divorce would be sin, and he would sin if he remarried.

With this understanding, all texts are easily made to agree.

I'm not sure where you are getting that the audience was Jewish for Matthew, and not for Mark and Luke. It is my understanding that the gospels were a record of Jesus' life and ministry. His ministry was specifically to the Jews. Can you support this assertion? Because your doctrine seems to stand or fall on the assumption that the audiences were different. If Matthew was written to the Jews, Mark and Luke were to the Gentiles, according to your theory. Who was John written to? Not trying to be critical, I'm just trying to understand.

The "one wife" doctrine is similar, but perhaps even more crucial. I'd like to share some thoughts on that interpretation. You believe that the one wife doctrine means that they must be married to the only wife that they have ever had. It makes everything simpler for you this way. It seems to me that your theory would exclude widowers who remarried, as well as they who married and divorced before becoming saved. Just my thoughts.

I believe that the proper interpretation is that they do not have more than one wife . . . currently. I acknowledge that this is an issue that is not as simple, and the answer not as obvious as we would like it to be. Remember Aquila, the church at Jerusalem was zealous concerning the law. As you have pointed out, we have a new covenant, we are not bound by the law as the Israelites were. But they were following the law. So . . . if my brother died and had not fathered a man-child, I was required by law to take his wife (even though I am already married), and father a son unto him. Now I have two wives, and wouldn't you know it, my other brother dies, and guess what, he had no son either. Now I am required (by law) to do the same for my other brother. I now have three wives. (Do you remember the hypothetical situation where seven brothers married the same woman, in turn, each dying, until she had been married to them all, and whose wife would she be in the afterlife? This was a situation that lets us know that this law was still being followed in Jesus' lifetime.) So to say that the one wife thing, means more than one wife in your lifetime, doesn't survive the test of rightly dividing the scripture to me. And if you are wrong, and I believe you are, your whole doctrine collapses because your foundation is faulty.

I am reluctant to criticize you, because I know you receive plenty of that, and I don't feel good about piling on somebody, however please accept this as constructive criticism and respond to it with an answer that is based solidly on scripture. You have picked one of three theories that are based on commentary of someone who is floating them as possible interpretations of a passage. It seems to me that out of three possibilities, he has no alternative but to be wrong twice. I don't like the numbers, yet you fasten onto one of the three, and evidently take it for settled fact.

Once again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just searching for the truth. Let me know what you think.

[berkeley]

Matthew, Mark -JEWS

Luke -GENTILES

John -EVERYONE

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This little inspirational thought came to mind as I meditated upon the Lord after my prayer and devotion. I want to share it here....

How did you feel the last time a coffee mug slipped from your hands and shattered on your kitchen floor? Probably some combination of surprise and annoyance. If it was an heirloom or a sentimental piece, you may have even felt supremely guilty as you swept up the shards.

In Japan, instead of tossing these pieces in the trash, some craftsmen practice the 500-year-old art of kintsugi, or “golden joinery,” which is a method of restoring a broken piece with a lacquer that is mixed with gold, silver, or platinum.

While the general Western consensus on broken objects is that they have lost their value, practitioners and admirers of kintsugi believe that neverending consumerism is not a spiritually rewarding experience.

The kintsugi method conveys a philosophy not of replacement, but of awe, reverence, and restoration. The gold-filled cracks of a once-broken item are a testament to its history. Shimode points out that “The importance in kintsugi is not the physical appearance, it is… the beauty and the importance [that] stays in the one who is looking at the dish.”

Non-Japanese makers may not realize it, but we practice this philosophy when we see a broken object’s potential, when we upcycle, when we repurpose, when we reincarnate an object that would otherwise likely be thrown away.

Please clarify the "thought came to mind as I meditated upon the Lord" part here. Is this a thought you believe came from the Lord or is it something you previously read which you then remembered during this time?