Re: Some are changing God's definition of divorce
- Hi Robert, sorry, obviously I was not clear in my last
post to you. Yes, I believe I do understand Paul's
application, but I did not understand what you were
saying in your last post in regards to it. I was
just asking that you explain what you were saying
and be more specific so that I would understand.
It seems that you are still maintaining the same
idea that in the case of Jesus' exception that they
are not married. It seems clear to me that Jesus is
speaking of putting away a wife--not a woman. Again,
however, my belief is that Scripture has been tampered
with and altered to support a monogamy-only viewpoint.
To me it seems obvious, because if the exception of
Jesus really stands as is, then by his statement he
is going against the will of God that allowed men to
have multiple wives and concubines--and we know that
Jesus never went against the will of God.
I might just mention one other aspect. One of the
practical reasons for polygamy is that if practiced
in accordance with God's will, i.e., in a godly,
Christian way, it would avoid the "serial monogamy"
that runs rampant in a monogamy-only society, where
everyone is allowed to divorce/remarry/divorce/remarry,
etc., etc., as many times as they wish, which certainly
cannot be pleasing to God. Yes, it's better to marry
than to commit fornication according to Paul, but it's
even better to stay married instead of divorcing and
remarrying several times, too, which I believe is
what Jesus was really addressing.
Nevertheless, I'd be interested to know what your
reaction is to my last post regarding the possible
interpretations of the word "gune". Were you already
aware of this, and did you take this into account when
developing your position on divorce and remarriage?
> Robert wrote:because it was you that brought up the question. We are
> I thought you understood regarding "Paul's application"
taking about his use of the word "fornication" in 1Cor 7:1,2
as compared to Jesus' use in Matt. 19:9.
> Tim H wrote:
> Hi Robert, I have to admit I'm not sure what you mean
> in regards to Paul's application. You will have to be
> more specific, and provide Scripture, but for now I
> will give you something more to think about.
> The word "gune" translated as "wife" can not only be
> translated as "woman", but it can also be translated
> in the plural, i.e., as "wives" or as "women." It's
> the context that determines the proper translation,
> and, of course, translator bias comes into play, too.
> In Christ,
> Tim H
> > Robert Waters to Tim H,
> > Thanks for being persistent. Your reasoning has caused
> me to think. Let me throw something out here and you can
> give me your take on it:
> > The word word for "wife" is the same as the word for
> woman, and therefore might not indicate they were actually
> married. Thus, if they were not married there would be
> fornication and the "putting away" could be "for fornication,"
> exactly as Paul was talking about rather than incest, or
> some other illegal or unscriptural marriage. There might
> be problems with this view, but I'll not bring anything
> up just now.
> > Brotherly,
> > Robert Waters
> > Tim H wrote:
> > Hi Robert, I understand what you're saying, but my
> > question is why would the definition of fornication
> > be limited in the exception of Jesus, and not limited
> > in Paul's application? It seems that if both meanings
> > apply in Paul's application, why wouldn't both apply
> > in the exception of Jesus? You say it's pretty much
> > the same in both cases, yet you seem to limit it in
> > regards to the exception of Jesus to the union being
> > incestuous, or otherwise illegal and unscriptural,
> > rather than the generally accepted definition of
> > illicit sexual intercourse as in the case of Paul.
> > You said:
> > The word fornication, then, is the violation of Mosaic Law
> > forbidding marriage between persons of blood relationships.
> > With this in mind, we offer the following paraphrase of
> > Matt. 19:9: "And I say unto you, whoever shall put away his
> > wife without a certificate of divorcement, except in cases
> > where he is married to a close relative forbidden by the
> > Law, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and
> > whoso marrieth her which is put away without a certificate
> > of divorcement doth commit adultery."
> > This really doesn't indicate that fornication is "really
> > pretty much the same in the `exception clause' as it is
> > in Paul's preaching" as you say in this post. It still
> > seems you're being inconsistent, and it still sounds like
> > applying two different definitions in two different cases
> > as a matter of convenience.
> > In Christ,
> > Tim H
> > P.S. You said "Matthew's `exceptive clause' is against such
> > permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity." The
> > teaching of Jesus in Matthew had nothing to do with the
> > Gentiles. The gospel was not revealed nor taken to the
> > Gentiles until after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
> > As Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of
> > the house of Israel." (Matt 15:24).
> > P.S.S. Actually, if you think about it, this fact could
> > possibly help strengthen your position--and it's the only
> > way I can see to justify using two different applications
> > of the word 'fornication'.
> > > Robert to Tim,
> > >
> > > Tim H wrote:
> > > So, are you also saying that Paul preached to let men and
> > > women have a spouse to avoid "the violation of Mosaic Law
> > > forbidding marriage between persons of blood relationships" ?
> > > That people should marry, if necessary, to avoid "the violation
> > > of Mosaic Law forbidding marriage between persons of blood
> > > relationships" ? Of course, this makes no sense at all...
> > >
> > > Therefore, it appears to me that you are defining "fornication"
> > > two different ways as a matter of convenience. In regards to
> > > the exception of Jesus, fornication is "the violation of Mosaic
> > > Law forbidding marriage between persons of blood relationships",
> > > but in Paul's case, that people should marry, if necessary, to
> > > avoid "fornication", it seems clear that you are accepting the
> > > common definition of "illicit sexual intercourse."
> > >
> > > Okay, to be fair, perhaps we can correctly understand the
> > > word fornication to have both meanings depending upon their
> > > usage. After all, many words have more than one meaning.
> > > However, the question is how do you justify using the one
> > > definition in one case (Jesus' exception} and the other
> > > definition in the other case (Paul's preaching)? It seems
> > > to be a matter of convenience, which weakens your position.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim,
> > > Fornication has a broad meaning. Nevertheless, it is
> > really pretty much the same in the "exception clause" as it
> > is in Paul preaching (1Cor7:1,2). In the exception clause
> > (which could be an incestuous relationship) the people are
> > not truly married - the union is illegal and unscriptural.
> > The fornication that one can avoid by being married, as per
> > Paul's instructions to "let them marry," would include such
> > an unlawful union as well as just shacking up, one night
> > stands, and visits to a professional.
> > >
> > > Brotherly,
> > > Robert Waters
- --- In TruthorTradition@yahoogroups.com, Robert Waters
> Not all are able to see things when there is obvious proof. TheJews, even Paul (til Jesus met with him from the dead0, could not see
that Jesus was the savior. I don't know how to explain this.
In the case of the Jews, they envisioned and yearned for a Messiah who
would bring them wealth, power, victory over their enemies, etc. on
EARTH. Jesus didn't fit that picture (as his kingdom is in heaven), so
they refused to believe in him - and still do today - even though He
fulfilled so many of the prophecies.
Some want so badly to see what they want to see that they cannot see