tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8187164257153339395.post7677506401500309161..comments2023-09-19T09:35:35.364-05:00Comments on Spirit of the Master: Understanding What Jesus Meant in Matthew 19:9 About Deuteronomy 24:1-4Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8187164257153339395.post-75984771250366658342013-01-14T05:58:11.005-06:002013-01-14T05:58:11.005-06:00SS,
Yes, I agree. Regardless of the remarriage is...SS,<br /><br />Yes, I agree. Regardless of the remarriage issue, it must be tragic to be abandoned by an unbeliever. <br /><br />My opinion is that an unbeliever who abandons a believing spouse will rarely remain celibate, at which point the spouse who was abandoned has a right to remarry following the unbeliever's fornication. <br /><br />I have found, for myself, that it is very easy to use a rigid and legalistic interpretation method concerning the intent of God's commands that is not sustainable. I have learned that commands are given for our (societies) well being, not to satisfy an angry God's wrath. Nevertheless, grace may be abused irresponsibly by some as a license to sin. God knows each person's motive at the time of action and whether s/he is using a cloak for misbehavior. The sheer amount of divorces in our culture cannot all be legit, but God is the Judge of that. The main thing is that each person takes responsibility and accepts that s/he will be judged for his individual action. <br /><br />No preacher or elder will be sharing an individual's judgment (2 Cor. 5:10), and I think that many people want someone else to be responsible for their decisions (clerical hierarchy). This is the real problem in hierarchical, cultural thinking of which divorce is a symptom. I think that many people simply find a "higher up" who agrees with them rather than flesh it out themselves (1 The. 5:21), and so irresponsibility, or direct accountability to God, is not realized in the person's mind, since someone is in between them and God, whether they agree or disagree on an issue.<br /><br />In 1 Cor. 7, verses 10-11 and v. 39 are the same as Matt. 19:9 and Romans 7:1-3, so I don't see an exception except the caveat I stated above about abandoners rarely remaining celibate. Again, I think God's intent is to maintain healthy (sound) societies, so Paul states, "how do you know if you will save your husbands, etc." if you "leave the body with them." God's intent is always toward one man/one woman for life. The momentum of our culture is often just the opposite, and divorce occurs "for every cause."<br /><br />Concerning "not bound." Not bound to (do) what? I think that it means not bound to remain married, or "go with" the departing spouse who is leaving the body of Christ. Again "re" marriage is never mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor. 7, and the two passages I stated, vv. 10-11, v. 39, are what do concern remarriage and state that the spouse is "to be reconciled or remain unmarried."<br /><br />Thanks for the dialogue, as it shows the importance of "discussion" (not monologue preaching) that is to be occurring in the assemblies (Acts 20:7), but has been hijacked by the preacher/elder hierarchy. I had assumed a different motive on your part initially, so I am glad I had the opportunity to ask that many may benefit from the truth coming to light, rather than being controlled by "oversight" and being afraid to "question the authority of the pulpit (word of God)." <br /><br />If you think that I have missed something you said, please let me know.<br /><br />Scott<br /> Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08888583181055076540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8187164257153339395.post-21492654107630393802013-01-13T03:53:00.337-06:002013-01-13T03:53:00.337-06:00Scott,
Thanks for your response. By sad, I meant...Scott, <br /><br />Thanks for your response. By sad, I meant that the reality of what is presented in your article is unfortunate for those whose unbelieving spouse leaves the marriage - especially if they are young with no kids(and desire to have those things) and are not able to be married again without sinning. <br /><br />I am aware that 1 Corinthians 7 does not speak of re-marriage directly for a believing spouse and that your article is about Matthew 19:9. My intent in writing is to have dialogue about the topic as I have read differing views about who is able to re-marry or not, and it is difficult to determine the truth because both sides present logical arguments. <br /><br />Romans 7:2 and 1 Cor. 7:39 say that a wife is not bound unless her husband dies. It appears that 1 Cor. 7:15 is the exception to those verses, as it states that a "sister or brother is not bound in such cases." If an unbelieving spouse leaves/divorces his believing spouse, then it would be redundant to say that the wife is "no longer bound" if such is the same as "no longer married to." Also, if a believing wife is still bound by the law of her husband when he leaves, when the husband lives a sexually immoral life while away, then what? the wife can "divorce" him again(since she was still bound by the law when he left) and remarry now that he's committed adultery?<br /><br />Also, in 1 Cor. 7(specifically v.25-28), Paul addresses marriage for those who have never been married and those who were married before, as he makes that distinction. So it seems that the apostle is allowing for remarriage. In regards to Matt. 19:9 and 5:32, I have read that these statements were specifically for the Jews who were not under the Christian dispensation, but Paul's instructions are for those who were. I'm not too sure if that argument holds up though, as Jesus gave many specific commands to the Jews directly that apply to Christians today("teaching them whatsoever I have commanded you"). <br /><br />I'm not sure, though, I would like to believe that God would be gracious to those who had no say in a divorce (no one can make a person stay with them) and allow them to marry again without living sinfully. However, I will believe whatever the truth is; it's just not so clear right now. <br /><br />-SSSolemn Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538603056503140102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8187164257153339395.post-47380822081836638302013-01-12T08:13:28.264-06:002013-01-12T08:13:28.264-06:00Solemn Seeker,
I am not sure what you mean by &q...Solemn Seeker, <br /><br />I am not sure what you mean by "this" is sad. Will you elaborate?<br /><br />My take on "no longer bound" is that the spouse should not think that they must remain married to an unbeliever who departs, let them go. What does this have to do with re-marriage?<br /><br />In Romans 7, I think Paul is saying that if a woman is married to another man while her husband is alive, then she is called an adultress, but if he dies she is free to "re" marry whom she wishes. <br /><br />My article is about what is positively stated in Matthew 19:9 about re-marriage, not just divorce. What is your take?<br /><br />ScottScotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08888583181055076540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8187164257153339395.post-73647849130954077522013-01-09T10:23:38.630-06:002013-01-09T10:23:38.630-06:00This is very sad to read. What about 1 Corinthians...This is very sad to read. What about 1 Corinthians 7, stating the believing spouse is no longer bound if the unbelieving spouse departs? It seems to be the same language used in Romans 7 to talk about the death of a spouse and the surviving spouse no longer being bound. What's your take on it?Solemn Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538603056503140102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8187164257153339395.post-80214823368305273852011-08-24T16:25:02.332-05:002011-08-24T16:25:02.332-05:00Bobby,
Thanks, man. The pleasure is all mine. Yo...Bobby, <br /><br />Thanks, man. The pleasure is all mine. Your recent article on "sound doctrine" from Timothy was refreshing, as well. I look forward to reading your series of articles on Deuteronomy. The authors you mentioned present a fresh perspective, don't they. Glad to have your link here. Look forward to future correspondence. God bless.<br /><br />ScottScotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08888583181055076540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8187164257153339395.post-35081342512633735732011-08-23T11:31:35.651-05:002011-08-23T11:31:35.651-05:00Scott I am delighted to stumble across your blog. ...Scott I am delighted to stumble across your blog. I have spent the last 20 minutes poking around and am refreshed. I did a series on the book of Deuteronomy called "The Gospel According to Moses" on my blog that perhaps you may be interested in. What a towering book of the Bible. <br /><br />You have some really thought provoking titles in your reading list: Hicks, Boyd, Wright ... and of course I have say Chapman because I love that book. <br /><br />I was stunned to see my blog linked on the left. I hope to get to know you better. <br /><br />Shalom,<br />Bobby ValentineStoned-Campbell Disciplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00807468566670784346noreply@blogger.com