Dealing with divorce.

[ALAYMAN]

Or perhaps that verse is not to be a doctrine all its own but rather a portion of revelation where the Pharisees failed. Jesus said to introduce this segment, "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." One of the areas where the Pharisees failed was in their allowance of divorce. So perhaps Jesus is explaining how one could be more righteous than the Pharisees for entrance into the kingdom. Perhaps.

Well, I don't beleive righteousness is attained by the keeping of the law, so that simply won't fit into any systematic understanding/hermeneutic.  To tell people that their righteousness had to exceed the righteousness of people who he had called whited sepulchers seems self-evident, that to inherit heaven he is pointing to a righteousness that is alien to our experience, and only found in himself.  And to make application to our discussion, "from the beginning it was not so" points to the sinful condition of man, which God accomodates through grace, and mediates through the intercession of Christ's sacrifice.  If a person claims Christ's sacrifice, and repents of their sin, there's no reason to discipline them.  So if the woman who was subjected to an illegitimate divorce (for the sake of argument to make things easy and clean lets say her husband cheated on her and divorced her) has indeed acknowledged the possibility that she sinned by remarrying, in humility and charity we ought to receive her into the body of believers.  And this has been the undercurrent of my point all along regarding discipline (purity of the church), that whatever the <potential> sin (not only divorce) we ought to have the right understanding and agreement/covenant with those who pledge to join our church, and not take membership so lightly.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Or perhaps that verse is not to be a doctrine all its own but rather a portion of revelation where the Pharisees failed. Jesus said to introduce this segment, "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." One of the areas where the Pharisees failed was in their allowance of divorce. So perhaps Jesus is explaining how one could be more righteous than the Pharisees for entrance into the kingdom. Perhaps.

Well, I don't beleive righteousness is attained by the keeping of the law, so that simply won't fit into any systematic understanding/hermeneutic.  To tell people that their righteousness had to exceed the righteousness of people who he had called whited sepulchers seems self-evident, that to inherit heaven he is pointing to a righteousness that is alien to our experience, and only found in himself.  And to make application to our discussion, "from the beginning it was not so" points to the sinful condition of man, which God accomodates through grace, and mediates through the intercession of Christ's sacrifice.  If a person claims Christ's sacrifice, and repents of their sin, there's no reason to discipline them.  So if the woman who was subjected to an illegitimate divorce (for the sake of argument to make things easy and clean lets say her husband cheated on her and divorced her) has indeed acknowledged the possibility that she sinned by remarrying, in humility and charity we ought to receive her into the body of believers.  And this has been the undercurrent of my point all along regarding discipline (purity of the church), that whatever the <potential> sin (not only divorce) we ought to have the right understanding and agreement/covenant with those who pledge to join our church, and not take membership so lightly.

"From the beginning it was not so" was also the idea when Samuel asked God for a king for Israel. Wasn't God's intent but was permitted. Seems Moses' writ of divorce was along the same lines, maybe not God's intent but was permissible by God.

Concerning righteousness, you might not believe righteousness is attained but it is pretty clear that Jesus taught it. To assume that the "whited temple" reference was a hidden message teaching Jesus imputes His righteousnsess to us, well, it certainly was hidden.

And getting back to my original posts on church discipline, Jesus said that those that do not adhere to the correction after being approached with witnesses, they were to be treated as Gentiles and tax collectors. So the question is, how should the church be treating those who would be our modern-day "Gentiles and tax collectors"? Would they or would they not be allowed in the fellowship of the church?

 

[ALAYMAN]

"From the beginning it was not so" was also the idea when Samuel asked God for a king for Israel. Wasn't God's intent but was permitted. Seems Moses' writ of divorce was along the same lines, maybe not God's intent but was permissible by God.

Right, God grants man's will be done, even when evil men design to put to death the Lord of Glory, and in doing so, he providentially accomplishes His sovereign purposes, without ever sinning Himself.  So to grant that men and women will divorce due to their hardheartedness and generally sinful nature doesn't mean he condones it, but it does mean that he works with broken vessels.  And the grace that saves us also forgives us when we knowingly sin if we repent.  The adultery situation, whatever your take on the "innocent" party, calls for repentance, grace, and humility.  A person living in a second marriage is not living an unforgiveable sin, regardless of any circumstances that may have brought it about. 

Concerning righteousness, you might not believe righteousness is attained but it is pretty clear that Jesus taught it. To assume that the "whited temple" reference was a hidden message teaching Jesus imputes His righteousnsess to us, well, it certainly was hidden.

Yet Jesus told parables that hid truth.  They were even so mysterious to his disciples that he had to break them down and explain them after the fact.  We also know that Jesus' teachings on the dying/suffering nature of His commission was not understood, even when he plainly told it.  And lastly, many other teachings of Christ to the disciples were met with confusion or bewilderment, so much so that Jesus rebuked his followers for having been with Him so long and yet not understood His message/teachings.  So it most certainly is possible that the passage in Matthew regarding imputed righteousness might have been less than absolutely clear to those who had already read of the OT law as their means of righteousness, just as it would be a mistake for a gentile today to hear the words of Scripture regarding obedience to commands of Christ and assume that somehow it merits them justification in God's sight.

And getting back to my original posts on church discipline, Jesus said that those that do not adhere to the correction after being approached with witnesses, they were to be treated as Gentiles and tax collectors. So the question is, how should the church be treating those who would be our modern-day "Gentiles and tax collectors"? Would they or would they not be allowed in the fellowship of the church?

You probably missed my response way back there, but I did reply to it back in the thread after you asked.  Jesus own words require discipline per Matthew 18 for unrepentant sinners.  God tells us that his children aren't bastards, and that he disciplines (scourges) those that are his.  When a child in your home goes wayward there are different levels of attention-getting that you utilize, but you don't just treat him/her like nothing is wrong, and God doesn't expect His children/family to be overly-permissive either.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You probably missed my response way back there, but I did reply to it back in the thread after you asked.  Jesus own words require discipline per Matthew 18 for unrepentant sinners.  God tells us that his children aren't bastards, and that he disciplines (scourges) those that are his.  When a child in your home goes wayward there are different levels of attention-getting that you utilize, but you don't just treat him/her like nothing is wrong, and God doesn't expect His children/family to be overly-permissive either.[/quote]

I absolutely discipline my kids; but, I can tell you right now, when one of them takes it upon themselves to "discipline" their siblings, it doesn't go pretty for the one providing "correction".

 

[ALAYMAN]

I absolutely discipline my kids; but, I can tell you right now, when one of them takes it upon themselves to "discipline" their siblings, it doesn't go pretty for the one providing "correction".

Christ delegated His authority and commanded siblings to correct their siblings.

 

[rsc2a]

I absolutely discipline my kids; but, I can tell you right now, when one of them takes it upon themselves to "discipline" their siblings, it doesn't go pretty for the one providing "correction".

Christ delegated His authority and commanded siblings to correct their siblings.

And, immediately before that section, He talks about going after the one in spite of the 99. And, immediately after that section, He how often we should grant forgiveness, the very thing you are refusing to do.

(Wow...and what a tie-in to the thread about sex offenders...)

 

[ALAYMAN]

And, immediately before that section, He talks about going after the one in spite of the 99. And, immediately after that section, He how often we should grant forgiveness, the very thing you are refusing to do.

stuff and nonsense.

In what way is church discipline "refusing forgiveness"?

 

[Castor Muscular]

stuff and nonsense.

In what way is church discipline "refusing forgiveness"?

It depends on what you are disciplining and what you think you're forgiving. 

 

[christundivided]

I absolutely discipline my kids; but, I can tell you right now, when one of them takes it upon themselves to "discipline" their siblings, it doesn't go pretty for the one providing "correction".

Christ delegated His authority and commanded siblings to correct their siblings.

And, immediately before that section, He talks about going after the one in spite of the 99. And, immediately after that section, He how often we should grant forgiveness, the very thing you are refusing to do.

(Wow...and what a tie-in to the thread about sex offenders...)

i don;t believe church members who have been divorced should be ostracized but you are totally wrong about there being any tie in here with the disgusting thread about sex offenders... .

matthew 18 has to do with a shepherd going out to find a lost sheep that has strayed from his flock... .  it has nothing to do with your obsession over bringing back wolves and throwing them in with the sheep... ..... .. a shepherd who makes a pet of wolves is no shepherd at all.. .. .. .

and speaking of forgiveness,...  in the real world a shepherd does not even spare his own dogs.. the ones who once helped him guard the sheep..  if they become bloodthirsty and begin preying on the sheep themselves ... ..  the offending dog is immediately killed because the shepherd knows that once they have tasted the blood of the sheep the dog will not be able to resist it again..... .

there are differences in a stray sheep.. a ravenous wolf... and a blood thirsty dog.. .. . until you learn what they are i suggest that neither you, nor any one else like you,.. should ever attempt to shepherd a flock. ....  or advise others on how to do it either.. .. ....  but of course those are just my opinions.. .. aren;t they....

He has no practical knowledge of running anything. All he has is theoretical nonsense. If he did pastor a church.... he wouldn't last a week with nonsense like this.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=aleshanee]i don;t believe church members who have been divorced should be ostracized but you are totally wrong about there being any tie in here with the disgusting thread about sex offenders... .

matthew 18 has to do with a shepherd going out to find a lost sheep that has strayed from his flock... .  it has nothing to do with your obsession over bringing back wolves and throwing them in with the sheep... ..... .. a shepherd who makes a pet of wolves is no shepherd at all.. .. .. .

and speaking of forgiveness,...  in the real world a shepherd does not even spare his own dogs.. the ones who once helped him guard the sheep..  if they become bloodthirsty and begin preying on the sheep themselves ... ..  the offending dog is immediately killed because the shepherd knows that once they have tasted the blood of the sheep the dog will not be able to resist it again..... .

there are differences in a stray sheep.. a ravenous wolf... and a blood thirsty dog.. .. . until you learn what they are i suggest that neither you, nor any one else like you,.. should ever attempt to shepherd a flock. ....  or advise others on how to do it either.. .. ....  but of course those are just my opinions.. .. aren;t they.... [/quote]

Yes...and here you are again stating that God cannot convert former wolves into sheep.

Personally, I happen to think that God is a lot bigger than that. (And, He has proven it time and time again.)

 

[Castor Muscular]

Yes...and here you are again stating that God cannot convert former wolves into sheep.

Personally, I happen to think that God is a lot bigger than that. (And, He has proven it time and time again.)

I said it before, but I'll say it again.  It isn't about what God can do.  It's about what we can know, and the risk/cost/benefit.  If there is any doubt, just do what it takes to protect your children.  And when it comes to kids, there is ALWAYS doubt.  I'd rather them be safe than all of us sorry. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

It depends on what you are disciplining and what you think you're forgiving.

What do you mean?

 

[Castor Muscular]

It depends on what you are disciplining and what you think you're forgiving.

What do you mean?

Just what I said.  If you can't imagine situations that fit, then, well, there's your problem. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Just what I said.  If you can't imagine situations that fit, then, well, there's your problem.

Learn to write in coherent sentences and then we'll talk.

 

[Mathew Ward]

I don't follow your reasoning, nor see your point here.  Could you say it differently?

Mr & Mrs Jones come to your church.  Mr Jones is on his second marriage.  His first ended without a Biblical means for divorce.  Mrs Jones is also on her second marriage with the first ending without a Biblical means for divorce.

They want to join the Alayman Baptist Church.  When the pastors/elders interview them about their previous divorces to ensure that repentance, forgiveness and restoration have taken place they find that it has.  There is no hardness of heart towards their former spouses.

Would they also inquire as to whether repentance, forgiveness and restoration for their 1 time adultery that happened because they were not divorced for the 2 prescribed Biblical reasons has also taken place when they got remarried?

Not sure if I missed your response to the rewording...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Right, God grants man's will be done, even when evil men design to put to death the Lord of Glory, and in doing so, he Yet Jesus told parables that hid truth.  They were even so mysterious to his disciples that he had to break them down and explain them after the fact.  We also know that Jesus' teachings on the dying/suffering nature of His commission was not understood, even when he plainly told it.  And lastly, many other teachings of Christ to the disciples were met with confusion or bewilderment, so much so that Jesus rebuked his followers for having been with Him so long and yet not understood His message/teachings.  So it most certainly is possible that the passage in Matthew regarding imputed righteousness might have been less than absolutely clear to those who had already read of the OT law as their means of righteousness, just as it would be a mistake for a gentile today to hear the words of Scripture regarding obedience to commands of Christ and assume that somehow it merits them justification in God's sight.

Deuteronomy 6:24-25

And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.’

Exemplifed in Luke 1 by Zechariah and Elizabeth:

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

No doubt some of the teachings of Jesus were enigmatic. But not everything He taught was. Every time it was recorded that Jesus was asked about eternal life, it always came down to obedience or the keeping of the law. He never suggested that faith alone was expected nor that imputation of righteousness was implied. Rather He clearly identified a works-based criteria whenever possible. Though the thief on the cross could do no works, he did what he could: profess publicly his repentance and surrender his will to Christ.

But getting back to the original thought, no doubt there were times Jesus was speaking "code" but not everything He taught was with a hidden agenda. To believe such is to lend interpretation to the reader. For instance, Jesus taught "the meek shall inherit the earth". Was Jesus teaching humility directly or was He telling the people, "Meekness will eventually win out but it will conquer its enemy: arrogance. So the arrogant are in power now so if you want earthly power, practice arrogance."

Obviously I am being silly with that, but that is what it can lead to. To assume Jesus wasn't direct in what the gospel really was all about, is a grievous error, IMHO.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Not sure if I missed your response to the rewording...

In the course of the introductory discussion we would undoubtedly cover the definition of adultery. 

No doubt some of the teachings of Jesus were enigmatic. But not everything He taught was. Every time it was recorded that Jesus was asked about eternal life, it always came down to obedience or the keeping of the law. He never suggested that faith alone was expected nor that imputation of righteousness was implied. Rather He clearly identified a works-based criteria whenever possible. Though the thief on the cross could do no works, he did what he could: profess publicly his repentance and surrender his will to Christ.

But getting back to the original thought, no doubt there were times Jesus was speaking "code" but not everything He taught was with a hidden agenda. To believe such is to lend interpretation to the reader. For instance, Jesus taught "the meek shall inherit the earth". Was Jesus teaching humility directly or was He telling the people, "Meekness will eventually win out but it will conquer its enemy: arrogance. So the arrogant are in power now so if you want earthly power, practice arrogance."

Obviously I am being silly with that, but that is what it can lead to. To assume Jesus wasn't direct in what the gospel really was all about, is a grievous error, IMHO.

I agree that not all his teachings were intentionally oblique. 

But I think it a bit afar from the thread discussion to delve into the imputated righteousness vs works righteousness topic, though I'd be willing to participate on a new thread about that if you would like.

 

[Castor Muscular]

In the course of the introductory discussion we would undoubtedly cover the definition of adultery. 

Maybe Matthew can brief you on the definition of "avoidance".

 

[ALAYMAN]

Maybe Matthew can brief you on the definition of "avoidance".

As hard a time I've had with interpreting some of his concerns, you still could take some coherence tips from him.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Quote from Mathew Ward
Not sure if I missed your response to the rewording...


Okay, I gave an answer, but to tell the truth, I didn't quite get any purposeful distinction in the question.  There would be three concerns in the interview/discussion.  1) That they understand the grievousness of divorce 2) That they have made things right to the best of their ability with their former spouse(s) and 3) That the children were being provided for. 

So what's behind your question that wouldn't be addressed by those three points?