The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:18 pm

mattrose wrote:
AVoice wrote:If initiating a divorce is sinful as you say it is, then you have Jesus saying that that certain sinful act is OK. What other act can you find Jesus saying is OK even though it is sinful? Did you mean to say "initiating a divorce [unless it is for adultery, abandonment or any other among the list that are at least as sinful] is sinful"?
I don't think you read very carefully in this case. I said initiating a divorce is a sin, but I added necessary nuance. If someone unrepentantly commits sexual sin, they are initiating divorce (breaking the covenant) whether they initiate paperwork or not. The wronged party may initiate the paperwork without initiating the divorce.

The rest of your most recent round of posts offer nothing new, nor do they further the discussion. You are still reading the statements as absolute statements. You are still mis-using the context of Jesus' teaching. You are still clinging to a very particularized reading of the greek. Etc.

You've been at this discussion for a long time (not just here, but I assume on other boards). Have you convinced anyone yet?
The word ‘absolute’ is not actually correct if you are to describe my genre of reading what Jesus meant. It would be more correct to say I read it in a manner where the actual meanings of the words used are allowed to apply.
Under your post marital divorce model, the liberality of changing numerous meanings and basic function of language could be called the non restrictive genre.
For example, under your model, saving for the cause of fornication is not restricted to the post marital sexual sin. Your model claims it means that abandonment or anything at least as bad as either the post marital sexual sin or abandonment are allowed on the list of acceptable reasons to divorce.

So the word ‘absolute’ can apply to both of our models. Mine claims that Jesus’ words and sentences are “absolutely restrictive” to acceptable meanings they can actually commonly possess. Your model claims that the exception of fornication can apply to a list of varying offenses, some sexual, others not sexual, hence Jesus’ words are “absolutely non restrictive” to acceptable meanings they can actually commonly possess.
The question your position is hereby constrained to answer is, are your words as you explain what Jesus meant, absolutely restrictive? Can we take the liberty with your explanation so that words can apply to other meanings they cannot actually possess? Haven’t you rendered Jesus’ words as non restricted to their actual meanings while not permitting such liberty to be taken with your own words?
Take for example the claim that while the post marital sexual sin is what fornication means, the adulterous act itself somehow renders the marriage as broken, yet the offended party still has the choice to either divorce or not. Then at the same time it is claimed that it cannot be only adultery, but an ongoing unrepentant state of adultery. And then the offended party is supposed to offer the Matt 18 solution to resolve the issue before actually divorcing. Are the varying conditions your model places on the situation 'absolutely restrictive’, after having rendered Jesus’ words as 'absolutely not restrictive’?

The offer is still open to present questions or reasons why the betrothal divorce does not fit perfectly within the actual contexts of all 4 sections of scripture spoken by Jesus.
And answers to my numerous questions not yet attempted to be answered are still being waited for.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by Homer » Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:12 pm

AVoice,
The word ‘absolute’ is not actually correct if you are to describe my genre of reading what Jesus meant. It would be more correct to say I read it in a manner where the actual meanings of the words used are allowed to apply.
I can scarcely believe you would make that claim. Any lexicon will tell you that the actual meaning of porneia is sexual immorality. Premarital sex is a sub-category. You have already been shown that Paul used porneia when referring to incest.
The offer is still open to present questions or reasons why the betrothal divorce does not fit perfectly within the actual contexts of all 4 sections of scripture spoken by Jesus.
The actual context is about real married people. Only in your imagination is it about betrothal. So I ask you, is the situation in Matthew 19 the same as the situation in Mark 10? They certainly appear to be the same incident. Why do you think Matthew would include a comment, supposedly about betrothed wives, and Mark would omit it? Mark was written to gentiles who also practiced betrothal contracts. Did Jesus have one law for Jews and another for gentiles?

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:10 am

Homer wrote:AVoice,
The word ‘absolute’ is not actually correct if you are to describe my genre of reading what Jesus meant. It would be more correct to say I read it in a manner where the actual meanings of the words used are allowed to apply.
I can scarcely believe you would make that claim. Any lexicon will tell you that the actual meaning of porneia is sexual immorality. Premarital sex is a sub-category. You have already been shown that Paul used porneia when referring to incest.
The offer is still open to present questions or reasons why the betrothal divorce does not fit perfectly within the actual contexts of all 4 sections of scripture spoken by Jesus.
The actual context is about real married people. Only in your imagination is it about betrothal. So I ask you, is the situation in Matthew 19 the same as the situation in Mark 10? They certainly appear to be the same incident. Why do you think Matthew would include a comment, supposedly about betrothed wives, and Mark would omit it? Mark was written to gentiles who also practiced betrothal contracts. Did Jesus have one law for Jews and another for gentiles?
One time a poster replied that the reason why the divorce for adultery position should be accepted, is because oftentimes the simplest is often also more likely to be correct.
In this case once the extreme complication and convoluted meanings and need to change definitions and words under the divorce for adultery model are uncovered, the betrothal explanation is found to be the simplest and most straightforward. Accepting the ancient two sided divorce culture as verified in scripture, is the only requirement, after which the text is extremely simple.
Homer, what woman does the last clause apply to in Matt 5;32, 19:9 and Luke 16:18?
I am still waiting for an answer from you.

Homer, your repeated objection has numerous times shown to be a mute argument. Due to the factors involved with their use of words and the flexibility of the meaning of "fornication", the betrothal explanation has NO objection as though it does not fit perfectly as what the grammar actually supports. In other words, reading it understanding that the exception clause was spoken exclusively referring to the premarital sexual sin makes all of the grammar perfect.
If you would try to answer my questions applied to your model whereby fornication is changed to mean adultery, you will find that the grammar is a mess.

So the question is then to be answered:
What are the chances that a complex sentence with 4 interconnected clauses, can correctly be interpreted wherein the grammar is caused to conflict with itself, but at the same time an interpretation exists where the grammar is absolutely perfect, but this interpretation is a lie? Remember, we are talking about a complex sentence with 4 separate clauses all dependent on each in order for the entire sentence to be deemed as completely grammatically competent. Such is the case with the two competeing models: the model that is claimed to be a lie fits perfectly grammatically while the model claimed to be true is an embarrassing mess.
For example, under the divorce for adultery model, the woman divorced for burning dinner is caused to commit adultery while she who was divorced for adultery is not caused to commit adultery. The last clause as written makes a direct connection between the woman divorced for burning dinner and the fact that she was caused to commit adultery. But when applied to the woman divorced for adultery there is a direct contradiction: she was not caused to commit adultery and yet whoever marries her commit adultery. The solution was to change the last clause as if it has to mean "and whoever marries her that is not so divorced, commits adultery". The words "not so" are required to be inserted and is further evidence of the little leaven that leavens the whole lump. This is especially disturbing in light of the fact that Luke 16:18 has the identical last clause and yet does not have the exception clause making it impossible for that text to mean "not so" because the exception clause is not there that would coerce that need of addition based on the misunderstanding of the exception clause.
I wrote an entire post addressing the situation between Matt 19 and Mark 10. No one has attempted to answer that post, which I take as a concession that there is no practical argument against it.

Your example concerning trespassing was not laid out in the actual scriptural format.
"No trespassing" by itself is understood that some are allowed and some are not. That is different to the scriptural format of "whosoever" relating to doing a certain act. So I modified your example to fit by making it into a "whosoever" format.
In that case under my modification, the two statements are indeed very different: as different as Mark is from Matthew, (when fornication is taken to mean adultery) the one plainly establishing a straight across prohibition, the other providing a kind of allowance.
I used the same modification of your trespassing example to demonstrate:
1) an essential exception clause that creates two entirely different and conflicting statements (as is the case when intepreting fornication to mean adultery in that context) and
2) a non essential exception clause which does NOT create two entirely different messages.

The betrothal explanation interprets fornication as fornication as that would have directly related to their premarital divorces in betrothal. That exception clause therefore is non essential not at all effecting the total prohibition against all post marital divorces.
As shared earlier, the betrothal explanation means the grammar is perfectly competent. When fornication is interpreted to mean adultery, the grammar is embarrasingly messy.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by mattrose » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:30 am

Avoice,

I have some direct yes/no type answers I'd appreciate hearing from you

1. Out of curiousity, are you a KJV-Onlyist. Do you think the NIV is Satan's work?
2. How long have you been debating this issue on message boards?
3. Have you ever convinced anyone of your position?
4. Since I have been exposed to your truth and still reject it, am I a false teacher? Hell bound?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3346
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by steve » Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:26 pm

AVoice,

I find you have posted 48 times at our forum. Strikingly, this is the only thread on which I can find anything from you. Are you a one-subject guy? If so, it is sad, because in 48 attempts, you have failed to make a case that open-minded, thinking Christians can find convincing. Maybe you ought to find a topic to research where you can be more persuasive.

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:42 pm

steve wrote:AVoice,

I find you have posted 48 times at our forum. Strikingly, this is the only thread on which I can find anything from you. Are you a one-subject guy? If so, it is sad, because in 48 attempts, you have failed to make a case that open-minded, thinking Christians can find convincing. Maybe you ought to find a topic to research where you can be more persuasive.

Suffer me that I may speak; and after that I have spoken, mock on.

Why herein is a marvelous thing, unrefuted evidence has been presented showing Matt 5:32; 19:9 as able to be read in a manner that makes the grammar completely competent and correct [by way of appointing the exception of fornication to the premarital divorce in betrothal, commonly understood at the time], while as when interpreting fornication to mean adultery, the grammar does not correspond and is incompetent, and attempts at appointing a meaning are convoluted.
The question is yet to be attempted to be answered by you:
What are the chances that a complex sentence having 4 separate interconnected clauses can be undertstood, wherein by one understanding the grammar is completely competent, but the teaching is heresy, while as the understanding deemed as representing the absolute truth is an extremely convoluted explanation that renders the author as grammatically incompetent? This is a direct question. I am actually looking for real numbers representing the sober chances of this possibility.
That is what the divorce for adultery model has done.

You did not answer the question that rendered your "God divorced Israel" argument as invalid.
And I sincerely want to know based on your apparent inordinate affection for the OT law, that if a Christian lives in a country whose laws allow polygamy; can that Christian have more than one wife?

You did not respond to the refutation of your claim concerning the comparison between Matt 19 and Mark 10 whereby the betrothal explanation answers perfectly.

Matt did not care to reply to the refutation of his claim that covenents can be broken, suggesting that since marriage is a covenant it can therefore be broken, hinging on the behaviour of one of the parties.

The argument assuming that "fornication" (porneia) cannot be pinpointing the premarital sexual sin in that context of Matthew 5 and 19 has been rendered impotent.
And yet you have the audacity to in effect say that not agreeing with you is sad as if a thinking person cannot agree with the plain statement that whatsoever God has joined together, man is not to put asunder!

I will that God would have mercy on you since you are facing the judgment for those encouraging adultery by remarriage.
The individual cases of the damned-for-living-in-adultery that you have had an influence on by your misguided false teaching will come back to haunt you since you must also be brought into judgment for being partly responsible for their damnation.
In your 3 part paper the bottom line is that any couple can divorce for any reason and just ask forgiveness sincerely after ward and the two new couples springing from the original couple (both having remarried) are living acceptably before God. You have turned the grace of God into lasciviousness.
A merciful thing that God could do is afflict you with an illness and allow you to sincerely search your heart while in bed as you suffer the illness, wherein as the scripture says, he opens their ears in their affliction.
The seriousness of this issue is devastatingly grave, insomuch I could offer myself to be killed if I am wrong, but pray that you could be dealt with mercifully because in your misguided zeal you are making war against God concerning this moral responsibility. May God have mercy on you. Perhaps this mercy can be manifested by way of affliction, whereby your ears can be opened.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by mattrose » Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:38 pm

AVoice... you seem to be in a world of your own. I know some message boards have an 'ignore' feature where you can 'ignore' certain posters (not even see their posts). It almost feels like you have everyone on ignore. You keep re-stating arguments that have already been responded to. You keep failing to respond to direct questions.

If you can read this, I just want to say that I think your obsession with this topic is unhealthy. Even if your view of these passages is correct, your attitude needs to change if you want to persuade others. But I'd more recommend that you simply stop making this issue the biggest issue in the world. I could understand your frustration, to a degree, if the rest of us were advocating divorce left and right. But as far as I can tell, everyone here hates divorce and would never 'recommend' it.

Post on some other topics. Go for a bike ride. Read a good novel. Anything!

dorianleigh
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:53 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by dorianleigh » Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:03 pm

How does God feel about Christian men who have had more than one Christian woman leave them? What if this man has issues with emotional abuse and is not loving his wife as Christ loved the church and more than one wife has just had enough and left? Isn't he accountable to God for emotionally divorcing her and driving her away? Christian women who are being loved as Christ loved the church, don't have any reason to leave. What about if he continues to blame these wives for leaving, without repenting and being willing see that the common denominator in all his marriages is himself? How many times can he continue to blame the women if he is driving them away and then blaming them for the divorces? Isn't he accountable for failing to be the leader?

If someone owns a company and his behavior causes all his employees to continually quit, can he blame the employees for going bankrupt? If a Christian man fails in his leadership with marriage, how does he feel that Biblically he can just keep getting a new wife? How has satan blinded the eyes of so many men? This seems to be happening in the church, more than in the world? It seems that many men are hanging on to the part of Scripture which says that they are free if the woman divorces them. Are they really free to marry again, or should they get some professional help so they can stop the cycle of driving women away? If they want a new wife, all they have to do is treat her in such a way that causes her too much pain to stay and then they can say they can be the victim? How many times can they do this and still blame the woman? What kind of witness is that for the unbeliever when they see a leader who has a few marriages under his belt and is still not able to be successful in the most important human relationship on earth?

When I meet a Christian man who has had more than one Christian wife divorce him and he is still blaming them, that tells me he is unrepentant and the cycle will continue if he finds himself another wife. Shouldn't these men just stop finding new wives and realize they need to look in the mirror?

Pride and arrogance seem to be blinding the eyes and the cycle continues...........

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3346
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by steve » Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:09 pm

Hi Dorian,

This last post sounds ominously as if there is some particular target in mind, since you have veered from the general topic of the thread to some specific, though unidentified, case. Since I am the only person at this forum that has publicly mentioned two failed marriages, and since you seem to have decided, without knowing me, to set about attacking me personally (as in the "Gregg Vs. Keller" thread), I can't get over the impression that you are talking about me here. You mention "a Christian leader" who has had more than one failed marriage. That sounds like it could possibly be me.

In this post, as in your posts at the "Keller" thread, you seem to be wishing for me to confess to having a contentious nature, proud motivations, and a failure to imitate Christ. I am, no doubt, defective in all of these areas, though I am not made to feel particularly convicted by your accusations, which do not seem to be based upon anything that I can discern from your posts. I don't think I have warranted your hostility, though I know that you have said you were once married and will never trust a man again. Maybe there are some issues toward men in general that you need to work out?

Just the other day, I was looking again at the accusations that I have heard over the years (generally from people who did not know me when I was married) that a "pattern" of being abandoned by Christian wives bespeaks some issue in me or in my treatment of my wives that I should face up to.

I have definitely made every effort to inquire diligently into this very matter, but to no avail.

First, there has been no "pattern" here. One woman married me and began having affairs soon afterward. I forgave and never condemned her for her affairs. She enjoyed staying in my home, because I am a congenial housemate, and she could have my financial support while sleeping with other men (though not with me). Finally, she found a man who would not only sleep with her, but live with her, so she left her baby and her husband, and never returned to either. She divorced me, claiming no grounds, and married (and divorced) two others in the following years. If this sounds like I am "blaming" her for the marriage failure, I am sorry for that impression. I am not looking to assign blame, but merely to explain what happened.

I married again and was very happily married to a great woman. She died. This does not contribute to any theories about "patterns" that I can see.

My last marriage was to a Christian missionary, who was a faithful Christian and a faithful wife for almost 20 years. After 19 years, she decided that she had given up the party life too soon, and chose to go back—where she remains to this day, ten years later. She also left her four children and me, and never communicated any reason for doing so. She just told some friends that she didn't love me—and never had. I see this as a very different situation than my first divorce. I do not see that I am blaming my wife, since I am not the type who gets any gratification by looking for people to blame. However, the circumstances were such that I do not easily find warrant to blame myself, either.

I would be glad to confess whatever faults I may have been guilty of in either of these marriages, if I could be informed of what they were. My wives have never communicated to me why they left and have never informed me of anything that they thought I had done to destroy the marriage. Both left without making any allusion to what I might have done to influence their decision, so I am left in the dark about this. I would not imagine that I was a perfect husband. However, I am aware of the spirit and the attitude in which I cherished and sought to nurture my wives.

It is not quite correct to say that two Christian women have left me. My first wife may never have been a true Christian, since she fell away so quickly, and never returned to Christ in the 37 years since backsliding. My last wife, I suspect, was probably a true Christian at one time. However, she did not leave me until some time after she had ceased to be a Christian, so I don't think I have ever been abandoned by a Christian wife. I am sure it would not be easy to be a non-Christian woman (or, more properly, one who had turned deliberately against God) and to live with a man in ministry.

As for the suggestion that a woman who is loved as Christ loved the church would find no reasonable incentive to leave her husband, I cannot dispute this. I can't imagine why anyone, under any circumstances would either leave Christ or their loving spouse (or their children).

The sad fact is that both men and women seem very capable of doing just that. I was the first person I knew to whom such a thing had happened, so that it seemed, at the time, unbelievable and surreal to me. However, in the intervening years, I have become aware of a veritable rash of this kind of behavior in "Christian" marriages.

While it would sound just silly for me to insist that I had loved my wives as perfectly as Christ loves the church, yet it is evident that Christ loved my wives as He loves the church—but that did not prevent them from abandoning Him as well as their husband and children.

I don't share such things in order to justify myself, since there is no one before whom I feel any urge to be justified, other than God. I do, however, concern myself with the credibility of the ministry, and the impact that wrong judgments against me may have upon the ability of others to receive what I offer in terms of ministry.

Of course, I have long been aware that winning everyone's confidence is not a possibility. If you feel that my ministry is tainted by the things I have suffered—or the manner in which I suffered them—then I can easily see why you would look elsewhere than my radio program for your spiritual nurture.

dorianleigh
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:53 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by dorianleigh » Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:33 pm

Dear Brother Steve,

Your defensiveness speaks volumes!

Why would you take a generic post so personally? Are you the only Christian leader with more than one failed marriage? I hate to disappoint you, but it is not always about Steve. I do appreciate your decision to defend yourself in the area of your failed marriages, but please don't assume that this forum revolves around you. Perhaps you are highly sensitive about your inability to succeed in the role of a godly husband? Your attempts to control what is shared in this site, is disappointing and unhealthy. Self centeredness is the enemy to every marriage and healthy relationship.

I love you as my Christian brother and am praying for any denial (self delusion) which may be hindering your ability to succeed in the most important human relationship of marriage. Marriage is designed to teach us how to walk in love, and so far, my experience with this site has not been what I Corin. 13 teaches me about love. No judgments, just sharing my experiences.......

In Him,
Dorian

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”