Is there such a thing as "Christian divorce?"

[HuntingMan]

And also....

A wife is a lawful wife even during the betrothal year and punishable as such
By WmTipton

A woman was the covenant wife of her husband during the whole betrothal year.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. (Deu 22:23-24 KJV)

This 'betrothed' woman IS this neighbors WIFE as proven by clear scripture. So Jesus isn't referring to premarital sex, the two were married lawfully. Jesus said “wife'' in His exception clause, as well He would since lawful marriage WAS the topic at hand in Matthew 19. A wife was a "wife" lawfully as soon as she was betrothed/contracted in marriage. Jesus was not only referring to premarital sex in Matt 19 as some assert, because in the custom Jesus lived in "betrothed" was not a Premarital state, it was unconsummated marriage. It was Lawful, binding, permanent marriage as proven by Joseph and Marys case. Joe was her lawful husband and therefore the earthly father of Jesus, just as he is called in scripture.

There is no distinction made between ''espoused wife'' and ''wife'' as far as the punishment for willful sexual sin in the OT. When Jesus says ''except for whoredom”, He shows that to divorce frivolously for the purpose of marrying another is an act of adultery. What has changed, though is mercy to the sinner. By not issuing the death of the woman found in adultery, Jesus has shown that the adulteress isn't to be put to death because of mercy's sake.

An interesting point is that if a woman isn't the lawful ‘’wife’’ of her husband during the betrothal year, that would mean that Jesus would have been illegitimate having not been born with both a father and mother who were lawfully married. If Mary wasnt Josephs lawful ''wife'' when Jesus was born that would make Him illegitimate. *IF* Mary wasn’t Josephs lawful WIFE, the Jews would have made Jesus and Marys life hell over it....Jesus being a ''messiah'' and born to a woman who was not ''married'' lawfully. Knowing anything about the Pharisees at all shows us that they would have been pointing this out first and foremost if Jesus was born out of wedlock.
Mary would have been put to trial as well if she wasn’t Joseph's LAWFUL COVENANT WIFE and was with child..especially this particular child who drew attention to her whole family. We might think a woman could go unnoticed in this matter normally, but certainly the popularity of her Son would have drawn the Pharisees attention to her ''unmarried with child'' status.
Mary was Joseph's LAWFUL wife. That is scriptural and cultural fact.

 

[HuntingMan]

and again yet more evidence....


Jesus said ''wife'' not "espoused" in His exceptions
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
Here we wish to show simply that in both of His exceptions, that our Lords actual words are referring to a ‘wife’ and not restricted to an ‘espoused’ wife as Mary was refered to.

Supporting Evidence

In His exception clauses, Jesus is clearly referring to a lawful wife. If Jesus had been only referring to the betrothal period in the exception clause, He would have used the very term used for Mary at times...."espoused wife'' or ''espoused'' (see G3423) in His exception clause.

Luk 2:5
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

G3423
mnace-tyoo'-o
From a derivative of G3415; to give a souvenir (engagement present), that is, betroth: - espouse.

IF Jesus had actually intended to only indicate an espoused wife in His exceptions, then surely the Lord of all creation could have mustered up the wisdom to make it clear that that was His intent.

We see that in neither case does He use the term for ‘espoused wife’ as used in the passage above to describe Mary pre-hometaking.

Mat 5:32 KJV
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mat 19:9 KJV
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

*IF* it would have actually been our Lord intent to specify ONLY the espoused wife, as some of our peers claim, then surely the writer would have been able to come up with a way to clarify that point instead of leaving it in such a manner as to indicate ANY ‘wife’ either before or after hometaking..

Jesus did not restrict His exception to betrothal or even premarital sex.

 

[expos4ever]

Honestly, I believe that SELFishness is the single root of ALL divorce...

I doubt this is true. There are certainly cases where something other than selfishness is the cause of the divorce.

Consider this scenario: Let's say Fred is one of those people who "can't say no" - he feels an irresistable urge to please others, even to his own detriment.

Now suppose that Fred meets Jane. And Jane is highly motivated to get married. She wants children. She wants to be married. And she really does love Fred.

Fred feels obliged to marry Jane and does so even though he really doesn't even like her. He is marrying Jane because that is what Jane wants and he feels that it is his reponsibility to please her (which of course is not really the case).

And, of course, Fred is miserable, and soon Jane is too. They have nothing in common - there is factually no real basis for establishing a connection.

Now they get divorced by mutual consent, rather than spend the rest of their lives being miserable. They recognize that two people who have no basis for a shared life have come together through the unfortunate confluence of Fred's inability to say "no" and Jane's aggressive pursuit of marriage.

I am not sure how "selfishness" is a factor here. Can you explain how either party is being selfish?

Perhaps you will claim that it is "selfish" of both parties to wish to be happy? Well, you can always make that claim but I would be careful in this area. It is awfully easy for Christians to make this kind of judgement, yet live their lives in a manner where it is obvious that their happiness really comes first.

Alternately, you may claim that God can "do a miracle" and create a real bond between them even if they really have nothing in common. I am deeply skeptical of this, thinking it to be an unrealistic position. But you can always make that claim, I suppose.

 

[HuntingMan]

But, with the Spirit's help, if we humbly wait on the Lord and love our wives as we have been loved by Christ, we make the best witness of Christ that a marriage can. Far better than the happiest marriage you've ever known.

ok....and for the woman married to a man who REFUSES to let Christ do anything in his life but choose instead to cut off her nose ?
Its a bit hard to take you very seriously when you seem to fallaciously believe that all husbands just need to give their hearts to Jesus, chap...especially when scripture shows that MOST will not end up doing so.
You seem to make special rules for the married that dont apply to the unmarried, apparently....not ALL are going to come to Christ or follow His ways.
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=192

 

[HuntingMan]

I doubt this is true. There are certainly cases where something other than selfishness is the cause of the divorce.

I think there is room for disagreement on this point.
Ive been at the marriage thing, studywise, for 5 years or so and so far I havent crossed any situation where giving up 'self' and our own petty desires wouldnt have been a big fix for the marriage.

Consider this scenario: Let's say Fred is one of those people who "can't say no" - he feels an irresistable urge to please others, even to his own detriment.
Now suppose that Fred meets Jane. And Jane is highly motivated to get married. She wants children. She wants to be married. And she really does love Fred.
Fred feels obliged to marry Jane and does so even though he really doesn't even like her. He is marrying Jane because that is what Jane wants and he feels that it is his reponsibility to please her (which of course is not really the case).

And, of course, Fred is miserable, and soon Jane is too. They have nothing in common - there is factually no real basis for establishing a connection.

This couple went in under false pretenses.
It is selfishness on BOTH parts because they made their marriage covenant and arent willing to put in the effort to make it work.
Sorry if that offends, but that is just how I see it.

I am not sure how "selfishness" is a factor here. Can you explain how either party is being selfish?

Because they arent seeing that marriage belongs to GOD and they are putting their own selfish desires to part before trying to make a marriage out of it.
My guess is that these two are looking for the 'perfect' marriage and sadly hollywood fantasy marriages dont exist.

Perhaps you will claim that it is "selfish" of both parties to wish to be happy? Well, you can always make that claim but I would be careful in this area. It is awfully easy for Christians to make this kind of judgement, yet live their lives in a manner where it is obvious that their happiness really comes first.

Theres no need to be careful.
*IF* this couple cared about GODS view of marraige they WOULDNT seek to please themselves in the short run by throwing aside their covenants so easily.


This is my opinion which you seem to have already guessed I might have.
I do not say that I cannot be wrong about the viewpoint, but Ive yet to see a REAL divorce yet that didnt come down to one or both persons caring about what 'self' wanted more than God or their spouse

 

[expos4ever]

IIve been at the marriage thing, studywise, for 5 years or so and so far I havent crossed any situation where giving up 'self' and our own petty desires wouldnt have been a big fix for the marriage.

Your answer seems to assume that the differences are petty. What if they are not petty? There are people who, stupidly perhaps, marry people who do not even speak the same language they do. This not a "petty" difference. Or what if there is an extremely significant difference in intellect between the two. Again, it may an act of stupidity to marry in such a case, but this kind of difference is not "petty".

And, to be frank, unless one is living a life of near poverty, one is "not giving up one's petty desires" in response to the call of the gospel. Any Christian with a color TV, or a diamond ring, or an SUV, or who takes vacations in Hawaii, is clearly placing their relatively "petty" desires above the life-saving ways that money could have been otherwise used.

This couple went in under false pretenses.
It is selfishness on BOTH parts because they made their marriage covenant and arent willing to put in the effort to make it work.
Sorry if that offends, but that is just how I see it.

Again, this answer assumes that it is even possible for it to work. You cannot simply claim that this is so, just like I cannot simply claim the opposite.

 

[HuntingMan]

Your answer seems to assume that the differences are petty. What if they are not petty? There are people who, stupidly perhaps, marry people who do not even speak the same language they do. This not a "petty" difference. Or what if there is an extremely significant difference in intellect between the two. Again, it may an act of stupidity to marry in such a case, but this kind of difference is not "petty".

Actually my answer only ASSUMES that they are two reasonable individuals.
I understand making a stupid decision to marry...trust me I did it twice and both times was kicking myself in the head VERY shortly thereafter.
Im not getting into details here but I assure you that the 'differences' were FAR from 'petty' in BOTH of my first two marriages but I did not use those to get out of keeping my covenant vows.
It was ONLY because they both kept breaking the covenant with many adulteries and pretty much made it clear as crystal that they had no intent on stopping that I decided to divorce....I would NEVER have used our 'petty' differences to divorce because I think if it can be worked out then it should

Are we talking believers here, both man and wife ?
if not then this discussion is somewhat pointless....unbelievers arent going to see beyond the two anyway to understand there is a THIRD party involved....God.

If its 2 believers we are talking about then there is NO excuse for divorce OTHER than an actual breaking of the covenant with Adultery, Abuse or Abandonment.
Again, Im sorry but that is what I believe based on Gods word...no offense meant to you or anyone else here

And, to be frank, unless one is living a life of near poverty, one is "not giving up your petty desires" in response to the call of the gospel. Any Christian with a color TV, or a diamond ring, or an SUV, or who takes vacations in Hawaii, is clearly placing their relatively "petty" desires above the life-saving ways that money could have been otherwise used.

Im not entirely sure of your point here so Ill wait to respond

Again, this answer assumes that it is even possible for it to work.

Between 2 believers we are given NO choice in the matter, Im afraid.
Divorce DOES end the covenant, regardless, but to divorce WITHOUT a breaking of the covenant = sin from BOTH parties involved.
Gods intent for marriage is not for it to end at all, but especially for so called 'irreconcilable differences'.
NO Christian couple has that for their excuse Im afraid since we ARE called to a higher standard than the world.

1 Cor 7:10-11 is directed solely at a believing couple who are married. I suggest we all take that very seriously.
not that divorce is the unforgivable sin...but if we are divorcing simply because we werent 'in love' that simply is not an acceptable excuse.

Adultery, abandonment and abuse...those are what I see in Gods word as being acceptable reasons to end a marriage ...nothing less.

You cannot simply claim that this is so, just like I cannot simply claim that the opposite.

We can both claim whatever we wish to claim....supporting those claims with Gods word is another matter.

 

[expos4ever]

Actually my answer only ASSUMES that they are two reasonable individuals.
I understand making a stupid decision to marry...trust me I did it twice and both times was kicking myself in the head VERY shortly thereafter.
Im not getting into details here but I assure you that the 'differences' were FAR from 'petty' in BOTH of my first two marriages but I did not use those to get out of keeping my covenant vows.

Fair enough. You clearly have some relevant knowledg in these matters.

It was ONLY because they both kept breaking the covenant with many adulteries and pretty much made it clear as crystal that they had no intent on stopping that I decided to divorce....

At the risk of seemnig harsh here - although I sense that you are not overly sensitive and are open to other views - you cannot really know for sure that you would have "stuck it out" if this "out" (of their adulteries) had not presented. You can claim that you would, and you could really mean it - I am in no way accusing you of lack of genuineness.

But we never really know. I can claim that if I grew up in Nazi Germany, that I could never become a guard at a concentration camp. I am hesitant to say this with certainty, though, since I believe the dividing line between good and evil runs right through each of us.

Are we talking believers here, both man and wife ?

Yes, we are talking about believers.

Between 2 believers we are given NO choice in the matter, Im afraid.

My present position on the whole divorce issue is, I suspect, not one you will agree with.

I think that Jesus was talking about the cruel sending away that was common in his time. Thus, I tend to agree with this position set forth by Dallas Willard and Richard Foster:

"The basis for divorce among disciples is precisely the same as the basis for marriage. Where it is the case that the persons involved in a marriage would be substantially better off if the marriage were dissolved, the law of love dictates that a divorce should occur. If indeed the divorce is realized as a consequent of the law of love, the evil which is present in most divorces will not be present—and, indeed, very few divorces will occur. But the disciple will make sure of his or her obedience to the law of love in any divorce by making God his lawyer and judge through prayer.

The above view of the basis for divorce seems to run contrary to the directives given by Jesus and by Paul in their respective cultural-historical settings. But this is not so. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever discussed what we today call divorce. Jesus taught that men should not put away women. Neither He nor Paul dealt with divorce or separation by mutual consent or in cases where provision is made by a division of property or alimony or otherwise. He did not deal with this because it did not exist. Now this is not a theory or interpretation but a fact about his teaching on man/woman relationships. In I Cor. 7 Paul also deals only with one person putting away or leaving another, where one mate is a disciple and the other is not. To repeat, there is no prohibition of divorce as we now know it, except insofar as a divorce still turns out—as it often does—to be the cruel "putting away" which Jesus condemned."

 

[HuntingMan]

At the risk of seemnig harsh here - although I sense that you are not overly sensitive and are open to other views - you cannot really know for sure that you would have "stuck it out" if this "out" (of their adulteries) had not presented. You can claim that you would, and you could really mean it - I am in no way accusing you of lack of genuineness.

No need to worry about sounding harsh, friend.
I know myself very well. Ive spent the last decade trying to understand my reactions to things so that I can keep this disease I have under control, so I know quite certainly that barring a legitimate breach of covenant on the part of my spouse that nothing is going to cause me to walk away from it. Ive been subjected to things I dont care to repeat again at the hands of my second wife, including her attempts to 'accidiently' take my life, and I didnt find to leave until she made it clear that she was going to cheat and keep cheating.
I have 13 years of staying in that abusive marriage, including her adulteries throughout, to support any claim that I wouldnt simply desert a marriage without the covenant being broken.

But we never really know.

We arent talking about knowing the future here...we are talking about a CHOICE to honor a vow.
I dont foretell the future...I DECIDE to honor my covenant and only end it for a legitimate breach.
Its a choice, not ESP.

I can claim that if I grew up in Nazi Germany, that I could never become a guard at a concentration camp. I am hesitant to say this with certainty, though, since I believe the dividing line between good and evil runs right through each of us.

You can claim anything you wish, either of us can, but at least one of us has a history to support the claims they make.
I am 100% without a doubt absolutely CERTAIN that I would NEVER end a marriage covenant unless my spouse proved that they were going to continue to willfully break it.
Its not fortune telling...its MY choice to decide MY actions and REactions.

My present position on the whole divorce issue is, I suspect, not one you will agree with.

I think that Jesus was talking about the cruel sending away that was common in his time.

Actually concerning His speaking to the Jews on the matter I do believe it was about their cruelty in casting out their spouses without just cause...as we see with Herod and Herodias in Josephus' account, they did so without cause at all to marry each other.

I think we probably agree with more than we disagree

I cannot tell if you are promoting putting away by mutual consent or not (without just cause) but to do so IS against scripture that show that except for a breach of covenant we DO sin in putting away

 

[myways]

Dang, I can't keep up with this pace. Huntingman, your stream of thought is at an amazing level! I'd like to give you that compliment before I continue. Is it mostly natural or has it been progressive with practice? I have bad ADD and its really hard to get my words on the page--unless ive been drinking, strangely enough. I'd love to be able work at your kind of level.

Anyways, earlier I said that we are all more unfaithful to Christ than any spouse is to their earthly mate. You don't agree with this? I'm talking specifcly about idolatry. Think it over. I have to ration out my objections so my brain doesn't break. There's more later. thanks
dave

 

[HuntingMan]

Dang, I can't keep up with this pace. Huntingman, your stream of thought is at an amazing level! I'd like to give you that compliment before I continue. Is it mostly natural or has it been progressive with practice? I have bad ADD and its really hard to get my words on the page--unless ive been drinking, strangely enough. I'd love to be able work at your kind of level.

I dont mean to overwhelm you, friend, but folks like Sealedeternal here have left me little choice but to spend my days in study writing up refutations to their fallacious doctrines (the articles Ive presented from my website here).
David and a few others like to hang out in groups and overrun any opposing views by posting 5-10 posts for every one that we might present (they usually gang up like they do at Crosswalk.com so its not technically 'flooding' a thread), but the result is the same.
They pulled this stuff with me in the beginning to try to run me off too, but it was easy enough to discern what the tactic was. So I have written up many studies to try to deal with each and every fallacious assertion presented so that the readers have the full scope of information at hand....and so I have something I can present without having to worry about not being able to keep up.
there is nothing sealedeternal would like more than for us to have to retype out long responses for his ongoing posts so that we just give up.....with my articles already written to deal with it, I never will concede and walk away while my brothers and sisters are being attack by this chap and his group.

I hope you take the time to at least read thru what IVe posted, friend...I always give those who oppose my views that consideration and respect.

Anyways, earlier I said that we are all more unfaithful to Christ than any spouse is to their earthly mate. You don't agree with this?

I agree that we sin against Christ in a more obvious manner.
I do not agree that we 'commit adultery' against Him as 'adultery' is comparable to 'apostasy' in scripture. If we apostate ourselves there is no coming back.

Same as if I yell at my wife and so sin against her...that is hardly the same as breaking the covenant with adultery.
I know some like to play the game that all sins are the same, but they arent. There are some sins that are unto death...and some that arent.
Apostasy is FAR worse than yelling out a profanity when I slam my hand with a hammer. One is forgivable and understandable while the other is not.

I'm talking specifcly about idolatry. Think it over. I have to ration out my objections so my brain doesn't break. There's more later. thanks
dave

Idolatry would be equivalent 'apostasy' and that gives cause for an ending of the covenant....precisely what God did with His covenant with His beloved.
Oddly enough 'fornication' also alludes to 'idolatry' when God uses the word.

 

[SealedEternal]

Here again are Jesus and Paul's uneqivocal teachings on the subject on this subject, without the long diatribes of men trying to turn His words on their head to justify their own lifestyles:

Matthew 5:31-32 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? 6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."


Mark 10: 6-12 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

1 Corinthians 7: 10-11 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

I Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Romans 7:2-3 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

Ephesians 5:22Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

I Corinthians 6:9-11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such WERE some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Some here feel that each verse requires hundreds of words of "explanation" until it's tortured into submitting to the writers preconceived agenda, while I believe the clearest verses of scripture speak for themselves and require no one to interpret them for us, but rather we can read them and understand them as they were written.

Readers I exhort you to study God's Words on this and every subject, and ignore those who try to convince you they don't mean what they say.



SealedEternal

 

[HuntingMan]

And here again are links to the REST of the story that SE DOESNT want you to see...
He will keep posting the same half truths and out of context passages over and again...
READERS see my previous responses to Sealedeternal's hack and slash posting of scriptures above in my previous posts

A little background on divorce
The conditional marriage covenant
Ephesians 5 and the 'mystery' of the church and marriage
Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
Evidences of Remarriage II - Polygamy

What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together
Jesus was not accused of being born of fornication
Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matter ?
"Causes her to commit adultery"
“Committeth adultery” The Present Indicative deception
Why Jesus didn’t say ''except for ADULTERY''

"Remain Unmarried or reconcile” vs "not in bondage"
"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
1 Corinthians 7 Study
Unmarried” - 1 Corinthians 7

"Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)
"inappropriate contenteia...aka "fornication"

Are vows always ''unbreakable
What is putting away/divorce-When is a marriage dissolved
Refuting "only during betrothal"

The shock value/distraction of divorce statistics
Gay ‘unions’ are incomparable to remarriages
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin
Deuteronomy 24:1-4; not a ‘permission’ to divorce
Moses...the biggest sinner and lawbreaker of all time
Comparing Hyper-marital doctrines to Hyper-Calvinism

 

[HuntingMan]

while I believe the clearest verses of scripture speak for themselves and require no one to interpret them for us, but rather we can read them and understand them as they were written.

Huh...you mean like where Mark says NO SIGN will be given ???
We are called to be STUDENTS of scripture, David, not mindless drone parrots of it.
READERs see below what presenting "unequivocal" scripture without context and harmonizing the whole can do...

I wanted to show a point here about context and harmony and taking one passage TOO literally while rejecting others that should be worked TOGETHER with the rest.

Scripture says what it says and means what it means, correct?
We take each passage as absolutely as it is stated by what some seem to present. Some seem to believe that scriptures cannot be modified by other, similar scriptures and we ALL seem to have the problem of pushing our pet passages as absolute while rejecting anything that doesnt agree with our views.

Here is something that is stated VERY clearly in Mark and why we can NEVER just look at ONE passage and believe that it presents any absolutes without consulting the spirit of the WHOLE of Gods word.
This is expressed as an absolute here in Mark;

Mar 8:11-13 KJV And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. (12) And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. (13) And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.

See there ?
An ABSOLUTE statement given and by Jesus Christ Himself.
If I wanted to pull a legalist stunt here with this verse I could keep going on about how CLEAR it is, how direct and how unyeilding it is presented.
It is stated AS an absolute fact, no questions asked. ...NO sign shall be given to this generation.
Now, do you believe it because Jesus SAID it or not, dear reader ?
Decide now before we go on whether you take HIm at HIS word or not.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
and now let us continue with related scriptures elsewhere in the NT.

The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
(Mat 16:1-4 KJV)

See that ?...the REST of the story.
The statement in Mark was given as an ABSOLUTE....no exceptions, no excuses, absolutely absolute.
..but then we come to OTHER details in the NT...other writers....who give us MORE detail in the matter and make us realize that what is said in Mark IS true...but it ISNT the entire picture.


When you hear someone giving you a verse or two....someone pushing ONE side of a story on you and showing you the scriptures THEY want to have you believe, ALWAYs be a noble minded Berean and check the REST of Gods word in the matter.

Lets say you didnt know the scriptures and someone was pushing the Mark passage on you....you would literally believe that NO sign was to be given based on that narrow set of details, wouldnt you ?

This MDR thing is precisely the same.
Some here want you to accept THEIR pet passages as absolute without harmonizing ALL of the facts from the whole of Gods word in the matter.
They want you to see 'except for fornication' and 'God hates divorce' and base what you believe on THAT limited information instead of looking at the spirit of the WHOLE word of God.

Whatever Marks reasons for leaving out this sign of Jonah were, we know factually that Christ DID make the statement.
This is why we need all four gospels. It doesnt matter 'why' Mark didnt record the words, we KNOW that when Christ spoke about no sign being given that He DID say that the sign of Jonah would be given, even if Marks account seems to directly conflict with Matthews by not presenting it.

 

[HuntingMan]

Some here feel that each verse requires hundreds of words of "explanation" until it's tortured into submitting to the writers preconceived agenda,

Such as your mangling of the intent of Deut 24:1-4 into an allowance for divorce for sexual sin when that sin was already covered no more than days before in chapter 22 ?
The god you worship would seem to be somewhat absent minded, SE.

Readers I exhort you to study God's Words on this and every subject, and ignore those who try to convince you they don't mean what they say.

"Believe what I tell you Gods word means ... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

 

[HuntingMan]

Here is another 'unequivocal' statement of Christs....

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Guess by Sealedeternals manner of study Christ has just said that we gentiles are out of luck
Pretty clear statement...but is it the WHOLE scope of truth ? Absolutely not !

 

[SealedEternal]

Here is another 'unequivocal' statement of Christs....
Guess by Sealedeternals manner of study Christ has just said that we gentiles are out of luck
Pretty clear statement...but is it the WHOLE scope of truth ? Absolutely not !

Jesus was the Messiah sent specifically to the Israelites, so that statement is fully accurate. He did not come to the lost sheep of the gentiles, and the gentiles were not brought into the fold until after the Israelites rejected and killed Him.

SealedEternal

 

[HuntingMan]

Jesus was the Messiah sent specifically to the Israelites, so that statement is fully accurate. He did not come to the lost sheep of the gentiles, and the gentiles were not brought into the fold until after the Israelites rejected and killed Him.

SealedEternal

Thanks
....so to PROVE my point SEALEDETERNAL here CANT just let the verse SAY what it SAYS unequivocally but must EXPLAIN what the CONTEXT is so that we understand that, while the statement by Christ IS true, it ISNT the EXHAUSTIVE truth in that issue in the least...ie thanks to SE's explanation (no less than MY studies provide) we now have the REST of the story...

Great job, David

 

[HuntingMan]

You should stick around, David...Im interested to see if the outcome is any different this time

 

[SealedEternal]

Thanks for taking the hook there, David
....so to PROVE my point SEALEDETERNAL here CANT just let the verse SAY what it SAYS but must EXPLAIN what the CONTEXT is so that we understand that, while the statement by Christ IS true, it ISNT the EXHAUSTIVE truth in that issue in the least...ie thanks to SE's explanation (no less than MY studies provide) we now have the REST of the story...

Great job, David

No, that verse says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says, which was my point. Jesus was sent specifically to the house of Israel and no one else.

You on the other hand want to convince us that "everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery" (Luke 16:18) actually means that no one who divorces and remarries commits adultery, but this verse, like Mat. 15:24, in fact means exactly what it says and says exactly what it means.

SealedEternal