Help With Study On Divorce

Page 2 of 3 (41 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 40 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 5197
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 8 2013 9:37 PM

David Paul:

DAL:

Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness(note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

1 Cor. 7:27, 39

Hmm

The staggering thing here is...IT'S IN THE SAME CHAPTER!

Also, there is the passage leading into the above chapter...

1 Cor. 6:15, 16, 17, 18, 19 Notice in particular the last part of verse 19, and then consider Lev. 18:7, 8.

I was going to just quote the above verses and leave it at that...they are rather explicit in their conclusion--then I remembered that most of my experience has shown me that "obvious" Scriptural conclusions can often be stared at for hours, days, or longer and never be seen, so I will elaborate.

"bound", "free", "not your own", one person's body belonging to another...these speak IN THE CLEAREST POSSIBLE TERMS OF A BONDAGE THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO SLAVERY. Eph. 5:21, 24

...and sandwiched between the quote from DAL's article (that marriage is never likened to slavery) and the verses from my post above later in that chapter...IS THIS:

1 Cor. 7:22, 23 , and we know 2 Cor. 11:2 & Rev. 19:7

ASROCK x570 Creator, AMD R9 3950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, Asus Strix RTX 2080 ti, 2tb m.2 Seagate Firecuda SSD (x2) ...and other mechano-digital happiness.

"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not."

Posts 5197
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 8 2013 10:43 PM

Denise:

I knew a pastor who had to deal with a Christian son-in-law abusing his granddaughters.  And the question from the Christian wife.  His daughter.

If someone verifiably harmed my child or grandchild, the first thing I would do is buy a millstone--ebay has plenty to choose from.

Next, Mr. Man would vanish.  Psa. 37:10, 36

Then he would have his very own chance to find Nemo.

Who am I to argue with Yeishuu`a?

ASROCK x570 Creator, AMD R9 3950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, Asus Strix RTX 2080 ti, 2tb m.2 Seagate Firecuda SSD (x2) ...and other mechano-digital happiness.

"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not."

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 8 2013 11:32 PM

I'm assuming that you have read the gospel sections dealing with divorce so I will not recount them.  There seems to be some ambiguity regarding the case where a partner is discovered to have commited adultery, but situations regarding other instances have been mentioned.  I think part of the problem involves the attempt to find scriptural justification which might cover every instance:  If X then Y but if A then B, etc.  I think that the scriptures deal mainly with generalities and cannot be expected to cover every instance.  Sometimes a little common sense is necessary.  Desertion without provable adultery might be considered to implicitly involve adultery since "anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery" assumes that one will not remain single.  The case of spousal abuse and of abuse of the children are truly difficult cases.  Sometimes cases of spousal abuse can be resolved if it is possible to work with the abusing spouse.  Abuse of children [sexual ?] is an exceedingly difficult case.  I see little help for that.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 325
Robert Wazlavek | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 9 2013 7:19 AM

Jerry Bush:

Agreed; Paul is clear on desertion. But what is not clear about Matthew 19? If a spouse commits adultery, the other spouse is free to divorce and possibly remarry. They do not have to, but they are allowed to. What am I missing? I am not asking that in a smug or sarcastic manner. What is a different interpretation of that passage?

I would certainly want reconciliation in these cases when possible, even when the spouse is Biblically free to divorce. Sometimes reconciliation is possible and sometimes it is not.

I should have said abuse is a “no-brainer” in that the spouse should leave the situation – they are in danger. What is not clear from the Bible is the injured spouse allowed to divorce and remarry if she or he wanted to? That is what I am after – Biblical support one way or the other.

Robert, you completely missed what I was saying. I want to know what the Bible says. You accuse me of being “pretty set” on what I believe. I said I wanted Biblical principles, not something that supports my opinion(s).  When I said abuse seems like a no-brainer, I meant that is what it feels like but I want to know what the Word says about it.

A different interpretation...  We all know the questionable part about that whole passage is in fact only one verse, verse 9.  Personally, this throws up a red flag for me.  As an exercise pretend for a second that verse 9 isn't there in that passage in Matthew 19:3-9.  All of a sudden, without that verse there, the passage is now completely condemning divorce.  But one verse changes that and now makes for an allowance for divorce?  That's fishy to me.  It seems like Jesus is wholeheartedly against divorce up until verse 9.

So why is that verse included then?  I believe Jesus is simply stating the Mosaic law, and that's all He's doing in that verse.  Basically, in the passage, Jesus gives two sides... how the issue should be seen and what the Mosaic law says.  He actually does this in other places.  Remember the rich young ruler later in Matthew 19?  The rich man asked Jesus what He could do to have eternal life.  Jesus told him to follow the Mosaic law.  The rich man continued to press Jesus about it, so Jesus gave him another answer.  The same thing is happening here in 19:3-9, just reversed.  The Pharisees are pressing Jesus about what the Mosaic law, specifically, says.  Jesus tells them that essentially, God never meant for divorce to even be an option.  But the Pharisees continue to ask Jesus about it even though He had already given them an answer.  So Jesus tells them that basically people only get a divorce because of their hardness of heart (of both parties), because Moses only gave that law because of the people's hardness of heart on the issue.  Then Jesus restates what the Mosaic law says.  (The context of this conversation is related to the conservative and liberal views of the Jews on this issue in New Testament times.  Understanding that context shows that as the Pharisees continued to ask Jesus about the issue, Jesus basically agrees with the conservative reading of the Old Testament.  But how one reads the Mosaic law in the Old Testament doesn't change the fact that we are held to a higher standard as New Covenant Christians.)

Certainly the Mosaic law allows for divorce.  That's not in dispute.  The issue is, in the New Covenant, aren't we as followers of Jesus held to a new, higher standard?  By the law, adultery was physically cheating on the spouse.  Jesus says that adultery is committed when you even lust after someone else.  In the same way, divorce was once allowed without issue when physically adultery was committed.  But now we're called to love like Christ and never forsake our partners, as that was always God's original intention.  Anyway, sorry if that's a butchered version of how I read the text.  Admittedly, a few paragraphs doesn't do much justice to explaining it, I wrote a 7-page paper on this passage and still doubt I covered the issue as much as it deserves.  But ultimately, I simply find it too difficult to reconcile "allowing" divorce with everything else the Biblical authors say about divorce, even within Matthew 19:3-8 itself.

Yeah, the reconciliation goes back to what the spouse who committed the offense does.  If they decide they don't care that they committed adultery and really don't care about the relationship and want to leave, then Paul says let them.  However, if they repent and want to stay in the relationship, that is the proper road to take.  I think the issue with "allowing" divorce for a sin committed, like adultery, is that it can be treated as a ticket to get out of the marriage, which I don't think God ever intended.  For instance, what if adultery is committed but the offending spouse repents and wants to stay together, but the victim spouse says "no" because divorce is allowed and that spouse would rather just give up?  Should the victim spouse be allowed to basically not forgive the offending spouse simply because divorce is allowed?  Seems crazy, but that is a legitimate concern if divorce is simply "allowed" at the discretion of the victim.  Of course, someone can make the argument that there is forgiveness from the victim, but divorce is still wanted.  But that seems to be one of those "actions speak louder than words" situations.

Oh of course, I didn't mean that they couldn't separate for a time either (even Paul says to do so, in a way, for the sake of prayer), to be removed from the abusive situation.  But like I said, no, there is no biblical support for abuse granting the "allowance" of divorce and/or remarriage.  They should certainly separate, but continue to work out their problems while separated for however long it takes to resolve them (as long as both partners still want to reconcile).  At least, that would seem to be the wisest and most biblical course of action.

Sorry if I did misunderstand you.  Some of your language simply seemed like you were firm on your opinions and were looking for confirmation of them.  If you are an open man, I commend you.  Most are not, especially with difficult issues.  Thank you for hearing what I have to say.

Posts 22
Derek Ennis | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 9 2013 10:56 AM

I agree 100%!  His work in the "social and literary context" version at presenting a biblical theology of divorce and remarriage as well as a thorough examination of first century divorce language helped clear up my questions and most of the perceived contradictions on the topic.  It is a must own!

Posts 29252
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 9 2013 11:00 AM

Derek Ennis:
I agree 100%!

About what? Wink

It would be helpful if you were to quote the person you are interacting with. You can click the quote button when you are composing your reply. Even better: Highlight the passage you are interacting with and THEN hit quote. Notice that I quoted only part of your reply. 

macOS, iOS & iPadOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 22
Derek Ennis | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 9 2013 11:01 AM

Referring to David Instone-Brewer's book Divorce and Remarriage: the social and literary context as cited earlier in the thread.  Still figuring out how to cite other people's posts Smile

Posts 8004
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 9 2013 11:55 AM

David Paul:

DAL:

Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness(note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

1 Cor. 7:27, 39

Hmm

The staggering thing here is...IT'S IN THE SAME CHAPTER!

The staggering thing here is how you overlooked the fact that douloo found in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not the same verb found in 1 Corinthians 7:27, 39 you just cited.  The greek verb there is deo: "Δέω is used fig. for the binding of man and woman in marriage, founded on the order of creation and in the law (Rom 7:2; 1 Cor 7:27, 39; cf. Achilles Tatius i.11; Iamblichus VP xi.56)." [Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-). Vol. 1: Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament (293). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.]

The Greek verb found in 1 Corinthians 7:15 as mentioned in the article is dedoulotai from the Greek douloo which means to "enslave, make a slave; to make a slave of, reduce to bondage." [Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Beng Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (158). New York: Harper & Brothers.]

Hence is two different things.  And again, as I mentioned in my post to the OP, the fact is that the article is for his consideration to further his studies on the subject, not to start a debate.

Blessings!

DAL

Posts 29252
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 9 2013 12:58 PM

Derek Ennis:
 Still figuring out how to cite other people's posts Smile

No problem. Smile

I'm not at home to give you a better screenshot... Here is one from my phone. Notice the "quote" button above the formatting pallet:

macOS, iOS & iPadOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 1803
Tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 9 2013 2:41 PM

alabama24:

Derek Ennis:
I agree 100%!

About what? Wink

 Highlight the passage you are interacting with and THEN hit quote.

  Great Idea!!!!!

www.hombrereformado.org  Solo a Dios la Gloria   Apoyo

Posts 29252
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 9 2013 2:46 PM

Tom Rach:
Great Idea!!!!!

Thanks. Smile

macOS, iOS & iPadOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 8004
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Apr 9 2013 8:59 PM

Robert Wazlavek:

A different interpretation...  We all know the questionable part about that whole passage is in fact only one verse, verse 9.  Personally, this throws up a red flag for me.  As an exercise pretend for a second that verse 9 isn't there in that passage in Matthew 19:3-9.  All of a sudden, without that verse there, the passage is now completely condemning divorce.  But one verse changes that and now makes for an allowance for divorce?  That's fishy to me.  It seems like Jesus is wholeheartedly against divorce up until verse 9.

So why is that verse included then?  I believe Jesus is simply stating the Mosaic law, and that's all He's doing in that verse.  Basically, in the passage, Jesus gives two sides... how the issue should be seen and what the Mosaic law says.  

Matthew 19:9 is the key verse.  Jesus and God hate divorce, of course, but what Jesus is saying to the Jews who were testing him is: "Ok, is not lawful to divorce for any reason, because it hasn't been like that from the beginning.  In fact, the only reason why Moses/the Law "allowed it" (tolerated it) was because of your hardness of heart.  And I say to you (better rendered BUT I say to you) that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” 

The particle "δέ" dé; a particle standing after one or two words in a clause, strictly adversative, but more frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else, whether opposed to what precedes or simply continuative or explanatory.  Adversative, meaning but, on the contrary, on the other hand.  [Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.]

Simply put, Jesus is saying the only reason (not just any reason) you can divorce your spouse is if he/she has sex with someone else.  Sex is such an intimate privilege that is to be enjoyed within the marriage bond that if someone violates that intimacy, then Jesus, in essence, says you can either forgive that person and stay with them and try to repair the marriage or you can divorce them. 

Here's the obvious interpretation of Matthew 19:9, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” [The New King James Version. 1982 (Mt 19:9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson].

Very simple, do you want me to elaborate on the obvious some more, "And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.*” [Tyndale House Publishers. (2007). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (3rd ed.) (Mt 19:9). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]

Here's another way to explain it, "Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the basis of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” [The Lexham English Bible. 2012 (W. H. Harris, III, E. Ritzema, R. Brannan, D. Mangum, J. Dunham, J. A. Reimer & M. Wierenga, Ed.) (Mt 19:9). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.]

And last but not least (not my favorite translation but it makes the same point combining verse 8 and 9), "

Matthew 19:8-9, "Jesus said, “Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hard heartedness, but it is not part of God’s original plan. I’m holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery.”  [Peterson, E. H. (2005). The Message: The Bible in contemporary language (Mt 19:8–9). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.]

So what's the "red flag" or what's so "fishy" about Jesus plain, clear and simple teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage?  I don't think it can get any clearer than that.  The reason many don't accept it is because Jesus himself said it was hard to accept for those who are not mature, he said that when his disciples objected --- again, not my favorite translation but here it goes, "Jesus’ disciples objected, “If those are the terms of marriage, we’re stuck. Why get married?” But Jesus said, “Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn’t for everyone..." [Peterson, E. H. (2005). The Message: The Bible in contemporary language (Mt 19:10–11). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.]

Anyway, to the OP, I pray that God may give you wisdom to be able to study this subject and be able to provide Scriptural answers.  A word of advice: "Don't let yourself get intimidated by 'what if's' because the what if's are mainly thrown at you so you can deviate from the plain teaching of Jesus and make you doubt His Word and worst of all make you start making excuses for those who are living in adultery with someone who is not lawful for them to have."

Blessings!

DAL

Posts 325
Robert Wazlavek | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 10 2013 1:13 AM

DAL:

Stuff

You totally missed the premise of what I was saying.  And your insinuation that I am immature is rude and unnecessary, especially since you don't know me at all and completely failed to understand what I was saying.  Also, what is even more offensive is your insinuation that I am "throwing what if's" at the OP to deviate him from the "plain teaching of Jesus" and to cause him to doubt.  I desire and intend nothing of the sort and only wish that followers of Jesus would uphold the sanctity of marriage and truly understand what it means to conform to the image of Christ.  Even if you disagree, as a Christian, you should be more respectful, if nothing else.

I said in my other post clearly that Jesus was affirming that divorce was allowed in the Old Testament.  This is clear and obvious, and the translation of the sentence, what His words mean, etc, are obvious and completely unrelated to anything I said earlier.  I affirmed then and still do that Jesus was saying divorce is allowed... according to the Mosaic law.  That's not the issue.  The issue is whether we follow the law or the higher standard Jesus set.  Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of heart of the people.  God hates marriage.  These two facts we know.  Therefore, if you pursue divorce, you are pursuing what God hates and are showing that your heart is hard and that you refuse to forgive.  Those are not signs of followers of Jesus to say the least.  And it seems highly unlikely that Jesus would effectively say your heart and motivations are sinful if you pursue a divorce, but it's okay in certain circumstances anyway.

Also, since you brought it up, I'd say your interpretation of verses 10-11 are wrong too.  When Jesus said "Not everyone can receive this statement, but only those to whom it is given... he who is able to receive (or accept) this, let him receive it" He was referring to the statement that the disciples just made, "it is better not to marry."  Paul affirms this teaching in 1 Corinthians 7.  Jesus wasn't talking about how the "terms of marriage" and divorce are hard to accept and only the mature can accept them.  That doesn't even make sense given what He says about eunuchs afterward.  Rather, Jesus was affirming that it is better not to marry and that those who can accept that fact (and those "forced" to accept it) should and, therefore, should not marry.

Posts 24529
Forum MVP
Graham Criddle | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 10 2013 1:29 AM

Hi Robert

To avoid confusion - I believe above that you meant to say "God hates divorce"

If so, you might want to edit your post.

Graham

Posts 325
Robert Wazlavek | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 10 2013 10:24 PM

Graham Criddle:

Hi Robert

To avoid confusion - I believe above that you meant to say "God hates divorce"

If so, you might want to edit your post.

Graham

Oops, my bad.  I guess I got to typing too fast and overlooked that mistake.  You're right, "God hates divorce" is what I meant.  Thank you for clearing that up for me.  I'm unable to edit my post because I took too long.

Posts 5197
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 11 2013 2:10 AM

DAL:

David Paul:

DAL:

Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness(note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

1 Cor. 7:27, 39

Hmm

The staggering thing here is...IT'S IN THE SAME CHAPTER!

The staggering thing here is how you overlooked the fact that douloo found in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not the same verb found in 1 Corinthians 7:27, 39 you just cited.  

Really?? You think I overlooked that? Smile I would never overlook something like that.

On the other hand, I can see how the guy you quoted "overlooked" the evidence against his point that is found in the same chapter, because the verb in verses 27, 39 is "different"--or rather, not the exact same word. What I can't quite understand is how you managed to "overlook" the FULL definition of the word δέω...

DAL:

The greek verb there is deo: "Δέω is used fig. for the binding of man and woman in marriage, founded on the order of creation and in the law (Rom 7:21 Cor 7:2739; cf. Achilles Tatius i.11; Iamblichus VP xi.56)." [Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-). Vol. 1: Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament (293). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.]

I will save others from the bother of reading the whole EDNT entry in the body of this post, but suffice to say you only cut-and-paste a small "cherry-picked" part of one of the four definitions given for the word. For clarity, a cross-section of some of the verses that use this word include Mt. 12:29, Mt. 14:3, Mt. 22:13, Mk. 5:3, 4; Mk. 6:17, Mk. 15:1, 7; Lk. 13:16, Jn. 11:44, Acts 8:2, 14, 21; Acts 12:6, Acts 20:22, Acts 21:11, 33; Rev. 20:2, not to mention 1 Cor. 7:27, 39.

Curious how these uses appear to have been "overlooked" by you when you were telling me I "overlooked" the fact that there are two different verbs being used for "being bound" and "bondage" in 1 Cor. 7. Also curious is the fact you chose to use two different resources to get your lexical references for δέω and δουλόω. That said, I do accept your definition of δουλόω...

DAL:

The Greek verb found in 1 Corinthians 7:15 as mentioned in the article is dedoulotai from the Greek douloo which means to "enslave, make a slave; to make a slave of, reduce to bondage." [Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Beng Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (158). New York: Harper & Brothers.]

...as meaning "to enslave" or "reduce to bondage". But even on that point, there is more to the meaning than most would probably expect. Notice these uses of the word: Rom. 6:18, 22; 1 Cor. 9:19  Here we see that bondage is portrayed positively as something that ensures a close, responsive relationship to YHWH and His will that is entered into purposefully and willingly. But there is something more here. Look at the build up to Rom. 6:18...

Rom. 6:16, 17, 18 ...and then notice the last clause of verse 17, "you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed." That word "committed" is παραδίδωμι and it means "paradídōmi; fut. paradṓsō, from pará (3844), to the side of, over to, and dídōmi (1325), to give. To deliver over or up to the power of someone." ** Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament, electronic ed. (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993). G3860.

See that? "To give to the side of"...sounding a lot like giving in marriage. Am I making that up? Eph. 5:24, 25, 26, 27, where (verse 25) "Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (NASB) is παραδίδωμι. McReynolds translates it as "himself he gave over on behalf of her". Alright, put all this together--the δουλόω of Rom. 6:18, which your guy Wayne Jackson says NEVER is associated with marriage, is presented in clear context with παραδίδωμι in the previous verse (Rom. 6:17), which is itself presented smack-dab in the middle of Eph. 5:25, which is the one of the most explicit passages on marriage in the whole Bible.

I had about 2-3 other passages I wanted to add, but I'm suffering from the worst allergy attack I've ever experienced and I frankly don't feel like it. Your guy Jackson is just plain wrong. Marriage is a covenant of "submission", of voluntary binding and subjection, which is precisely why the whole thing is referred to as "the bond of matrimony". This is simply indisputable. We call ourselves "bond-servants" of Yeishuu`a, but the word is exactly the same word translated as "slave". Because the words "slave" and "slavery" make us uncomfortable, there is a tendency to avoid them. Biblically, that can't be supported.

DAL:

Hence is two different things.

As I've just shown, they are about as different as "big" and "large".

So, is there any Tanakh precident for what I'm asserting? Of course...Exo. 21:5, 6, the passages relating to the so-called "love slave", the slave who has opportunity to go free but remains in relationship because he "loves his master".

DAL:

And again, as I mentioned in my post to the OP, the fact is that the article is for his consideration to further his studies on the subject, not to start a debate.

I suggest that if you don't want to start a debate, then you shouldn't use loaded words like "overlooked". My dispute was with Jackson, not you...until you made it about me. Frankly, I really tire of having to defend myself against comments that are without merit.

ASROCK x570 Creator, AMD R9 3950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, Asus Strix RTX 2080 ti, 2tb m.2 Seagate Firecuda SSD (x2) ...and other mechano-digital happiness.

"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not."

Posts 2589
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 11 2013 8:35 AM

This is a subject that I also keep revisiting every once in a while. It's something that I am asked about from time to time. Over the years, my views have not remained the same.

Keep those resources coming. If they are in my library I would look at them too.

As for the discussion in this thread, given the fact that whole books have been written from the different perspectives, shall we call a truce?

Posts 8004
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 11 2013 7:14 PM

Robert Wazlavek:

Graham Criddle:

Hi Robert

To avoid confusion - I believe above that you meant to say "God hates divorce"

If so, you might want to edit your post.

Graham

Oops, my bad.  I guess I got to typing too fast and overlooked that mistake.  You're right, "God hates divorce" is what I meant.  Thank you for clearing that up for me.  I'm unable to edit my post because I took too long.

LOL dude, your post makes me laugh.  If I had a nickle every time people read in too much on the posts here I'd be a billionaire and would own ALL the titles Logos sells.

First, I never called YOU immature and second, I never insinuated you're the one "throwing what if's" so chill dude -- the advice was a general advice to the OP.  If I wanted to call you immature or even suggest you throw what if's and are trying to deviate people from the Word I'll tell it to your face or in writing in a very DIRECT way.  I have no need to imply anything, I'm not like that.  Hence, this is not about you is about the OP's question and providing helpful information.  

I noticed is a pattern with you that every time someone posts something you don't agree with you are quick to speculate and try to correct them or make unwise statements (e.g. your first post to the OP and you calling me ridiculous on another thread where I mentioned that I didn't believe in having christian punk rock, rap, etc. -- so about the immature thing, if you're not immature, then don't act like one and learn to relax a little...LOL...it seems, based on your profile picture, that you bang your head for Jesus too much and that may be affecting your reasoning a little ;-) Long live Metal Health! Hehehe...

Anyway, let me reply to someone else's post too. 

DAL

Posts 8004
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 11 2013 7:33 PM

LOL David Paul, you too need to learn to relax dude.  Do I think you overlooked what I mentioned? Based on the way you made your first post, yes, I think you overlooked it.  Now all the examples you cited and your Tanakh precident have nothing to do with the article.  Exo. 21:5, 6 is not talking about marriage, is talking about a slave's love for his master and it's in a total different context.

When you said I only picked a cherry from EDNT I did so because that was the only relevant cherry that can be used in the context of 1 Cor. 7:15.  Yes words take on different meanings on different contexts, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to make a salad out of all those different context and mix them together to try to justify an erroneous view like the "Pauline Privilege" on marriage, divorce and remarriage.  Jesus was clear that man cannot divorce for any reason except for that of fornication Matthew 19:9 and when he says EXCEPT for fornication that pretty much does away with the so called "Pauline Privilege" people misinterpret in 1 Corinthians 7:15.  That's my firm believe and it pretty much takes care of the "what if he's a woman beater, or a child abuser, etc." If a man or a woman sexually abuses a child then that man or woman needs to be put away for fornication and not only that, but be put in prison so he can get a taste of his own medicine...and if the spouse tolerates those circumstances he/she too must be thrown in prison for being stupid enough to tolerate such an abominable act.  Now if the woman gets beat up by her husband, then she needs to take courage and separate and remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:11) and if he goes and sleeps with another woman, then and only then she can file for divorce and find another scriptural partner.  That's all I'm going to add on the subject.

And lastly, as I mentioned before none of this information is given with the intention to start a debate so stop acting childish by taking this or any comment personal.  Just listen to yourself saying that you're tired of defending  yourself? What do you think, people are out to get you? Chill dude and don't take things personal, the Lord didn't so neither should you.  If people in this forum would stop taking things personal then we would all be having some great discussions in spite of disagreements or "debates" LOL...anyway, let me see if I can post on another interesting thread.

DAL

Posts 2589
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 11 2013 9:06 PM

DAL:

LOL David Paul, you too need to learn to relax dude.  Do I think you overlooked what I mentioned? Based on the way you made your first post, yes, I think you overlooked it.

 

... and if the spouse tolerates those circumstances he/she too must be thrown in prison for being stupid enough to tolerate such an abominable act ... 

... as I mentioned before none of this information is given with the intention to start a debate so stop acting childish by taking this or any comment personal.  Just listen to yourself saying that you're tired of defending  yourself?

 

Chill dude and don't take things personal, the Lord didn't so neither should you.

It's posts like this that make this forum less enjoyable for me. DAL, you did not "think that someone overlooked something". You said it was a "staggering thing that someone had overlooked something." That's different. That pokes fun at people, and elevates yourself, and is not polite in most societies.

As to your exegetical insights and use of Greek. I have no quarrel. But I have a small suggestion for you. You could discuss your posts with some of your friends who perhaps have studied and used Greek in their ministry for a longer time. Greek, or any language for that matter, is not all about consulting lexicons for word entries and piecing interpretations together.

Disclosure: I am not a shill for David Paul. I just wanted to sound out something that was on my mind, after observing the way this thread, and this forum in general, is headed. In my heart, I wish that the forum admins would do something more proactive.

 

Page 2 of 3 (41 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS