Scratch that last question.

LoL I was following a line of thought that broke down in the middle :)

1 Corinthians 7:24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Are a man's wife and and the children she bore to him, regardless of how many he has, any less of his own house than a widowed mother or aunt? Does the ex-muslim christian man kick them all out of his house? Should he keep all his children but deprive them of their mothers?



1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency

Should he keep them all in his household and continue to feed and clothe them but not go in unto them? Is there one he can still go in unto? Which one, the first or the last wife? What do you do with this verse?




1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

The obvious meaning of Paul's words "husband of one wife" is that men with more than one wife were excluded from taking these offices. Some say Paul is referring to divorced men. The following Commentaries recognize that polygamy was practiced by Jews or by both Jews and gentiles during Paul's time.. .

Gaebelein's Annoted Bible
"He must be the husband of one wife." This has been explained as excluding all who had been married twice. This is incorrect. It may refer to those who were as pagans married to more than one woman, for polygamy was practiced among the heathen in that day, as it is still. Converted to Christianity these pagans were in an unhappy condition, and on account of it could not exercise oversight in a local church.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
The husband of one wife; which is not to be understood in a mystical and allegorical sense of his being the pastor of one church, since the apostle afterwards speaks of his house and children, that are to be ruled and kept in good order by him, in distinction from the church of God; but in a literal sense of his conjugal estate; though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife; or that he should not marry, or not have married a second wife, after the death of the first; only if he marries or is married, that he should have but one wife at a time; so that this rule excludes all such persons from being elders, or pastors, or overseers of churches, that were "polygamists"; who had more wives than one at a time, or had divorced their wives, and not for adultery, and had married others. Now polygamy and divorces had very much obtained among the Jews; nor could the believing Jews be easily and at once brought off of them. And though they were not lawful nor to be allowed of in any; yet they were especially unbecoming and scandalous in officers of churches. So the high priest among the Jews, even when polygamy was in use, might not marry, or have two wives, at once; if he did, he could not minister in his office until he divorced one of them1. For it is written, Le 21:13, "he shall take a wife", אחת ולא שתים, "one, and not two"2. And the same that is said of the high priest, is said of all other priests; see Eze 44:22, likewise the Egyptian priests might not marry more wives than one, though others might have as many as they pleased3: and so the Flamines among the Romans4.


Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible
The husband of one wife; none who at the same time hath more wives than one, as many of the Jews had; nor was polygamy only common amongst the Jews, but amongst the other Eastern nations; but this was contrary to the institution of marriage. Some interpret this of successive marriage, as if it were a scandalous thing for a minister to marry a second time; but for this they have no pretence from holy writ, or reason, or the practice and custom of nations. Many persons lose their first wives so soon after marriage, that, were not second marriages lawful, all the ends of marriage must be frustrate as to them. The apostle commanding ministers to be the husbands but of one wife, doth not oblige them to marry, if God hath given them the gift of continency, but it establisheth the lawfulness of their marrying, against the doctrine of devils in this particular, which the Church of Rome teacheth.

John Wesley's Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. Therefore - That he may be capable of it. A bishop - Or pastor of a congregation. Must be blameless - Without fault or just suspicion. The husband of one wife - This neither means that a bishop must be married, nor that he may not marry a second wife; which it is just as lawful for him to do as to marry a first, and may in some cases be his bounden duty. But whereas polygamy and divorce on slight occasions were common both among the Jews and heathens, it teaches us that ministers, of all others, ought to stand clear of those sins. Vigilant, prudent - Lively and zealous, yet calm and wise. Of good behaviour - Naturally flowing from that vigilance and prudence.



Mark 10:2-12 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

As much as some would like him to have been, Jesus wasn't dealing with the issue of multiple wives. He was explaining to the Pharisees that a man shall cleave to his wife and they become one flesh and what God has joined together let not man put asunder. And that if the man does put away his wife and marries another he commits adultery against her. We are adding to his words to say that if a man marries another wife, but doesn't put away his existing wife, that he is committing adultery against her. We are taking away from the scriptures if we do not recognize that more than one wife was allowed among the Jews.



Here are some interesting facts about polygamy as practiced by Jews in modern times:

"The State of Israel has made polygamy illegal,[25][26] but in practice the law is not enforced, primarily so as not to interfere with Bedouin culture, where polygamy is common. Provisions were instituted to allow for existing polygamous families immigrating from countries where the practice was legal. Furthermore, former chief rabbi Ovadia Yosef[27] and Israeli columnist Greer Fay Cashman[28] have come out in favor of legalizing polygamy and the practice of pilegesh (concubine) by the Israeli government."

"Provisions were instituted to allow for existing polygamous families immigrating from countries where the practice was legal."

I believe that God has made provision for every circumstance that human beings find themselves in when they are saved without having to tear one flesh apart or abandon their children. Those who would bring up the homosexual marriage argument only show either their own ignorance of the scriptures and that they have succumbed to a humanist world view or they are disingenuous in offering up a straw man argument to attack this position. Two men or two women doesn't a marriage make.


Examples of polygamy allowed by church leaders:

Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.")

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."

Polygamy was practiced by the church in the past. I don't condone the practice of believers taking multiple wives, but some people's hero Martin Luther sure did when it suited him.


In Sub-Saharan Africa, there has often been a tension between the Christian churches' insistence on monogamy and traditional polygamy. In some instances in recent times there have been moves for accommodation; in others churches have resisted such moves strongly. African Independent Churches have sometimes referred to those parts of the Old Testament which describe polygamy in defending the practice.

Today, christians in Africa practice polygamy. I would agree with this only for those men or women who became believers in that circumstance. Believers shouldn't take multiple wives when they are believers. I believe this because of 1 Tim 3:2 and 1 Tim 3:12 and Titus 1:6. I believe these verses show the pattern that the church is to follow. But sinners who are saved by grace and come into the church don't have to break up their families in order to fit the perfect type of one man married to one woman. God has made provision just like He has for a believer marrying an unbeliever. The marriages are sanctified.




This argument that Jewish men were not allowed to have multiple wives in the old testament, or that it was not condoned by God, is nothing more than either ignorance or the unwillingness to believe God's word. It is grave error to superimpose our modern western views on the word of God. Maybe people got lost in the thread. I'll list the verses from the Law of Moses again.

Exodus 21:10-11, regulations on the practice of polygamy.

If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.


Deuteronomy 21:15–17, inheritance to go to the first-born son, even if he hates his mother and loves another wife better.

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.


Deuteronomy 17:15-17 instructions on a king not taking too many wives.

Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.



God ordained the role of kinsman-redeemer in the case of a man's death and the widow has no child, her husband's brother shall take her to wife. The firstborn which she bears succeeds in the name of his brother which is dead. The brother is given an out, but there is a penalty of shame if he takes it. The passage doesn't specify that the brother is immune if he was already married. That would be a troubling ommission from God's word if a married brother was immune.

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.



The Book of Ruth both her son's died. Ruth follows Naomi back to Bethlehem. Ruth meets Boaz as she gleaned in his field. Ruth tells Naomi. Naomi says to Ruth, The man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen. Boaz says to Ruth, And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I. Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the part of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman's part: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee, as the LORD liveth: lie down until the morning.Ruth 3:12-13 Boaz meets with the Naomi's nearest kinsman Ruth 4:5-6 Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it. You can check all of the bible commentaries, many of them on Swordsearcher interpret "lest I mar mine own inheritance" to mean the man already had a family. Considering that the Law of Moses contains regulations on having multiple wives, I believe that the man who already had a wife could be kinsman redeemer.

After the Lord slew Judah's son Er, Tamar's wife, Judah told his other son Onan to go in unto her, and marry her and raise up seed to Er. He spilled his seed on the ground rather than give his seed unto his brother. God slew Onan for doing that. Judah promised his young son Shelah to her when he grew up. Tamar ended up dressing as a harlot and was with child by her father-in-law Judah and bore his son. The point is, "brother" means the closet kinsman first. Then on down the line if he refuses. Provision was made for married men that didn't want to fill the role of a kinsman redeemer.



The Hebrew scriptures document approximately forty polygamists. Notable examples include Abraham, who bore for himself a child through his wife's maidservant;[15] Jacob, who had fallen in love with Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her sister, Leah;[16] David, who inherited his wives from Saul;[17] and perhaps most famously, Solomon, who was led astray by his wives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Christianity


My opinion is that the man continues to fulfill his husbandly obligations to his seven wives and fatherly obligation to his children. I believe I have supported my position. If someone doesn't agree that's fine.

Jessica,

Sin sure does create nasty and awful consequences doesn't it!?! What a horrible situation.


1 Corinthians 7:24 is in the context of believers putting away unbelievers. That. Is. The. Context.

1 Timothy 5:8 is in the context of caring for widows, not providing for multiple wives.


1 Corinthians 7:5 What do I do with this verse? {scratching head} obey it?...Oh but let's back up to verse 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. He is fornicating if he has more than one wife.

I care not what the commentaries say. The Bible is clear on this one. Husband of one wife? I stated earlier that was because more than one wife was tolerated in the Old Testament. The Lord is setting forth his new requirements for a leader as opposed to the leaders of the Old Testament who were "allowed" to have multiple wives.

All your questions can be answered fairly simply, but I've already posted quite a bit on this in another thread.

I really really wish Bro. Brandon or Bro. George or Bro. Forrest would chime in. Even if it is in disagreement with my take on what the Bible says concerning this. I am a little concerned at the quietness from everyone... :(

Good morning Greenbear :)

Interesting....It appears that we used some of the same Scripture to support 2 opposing perspectives...at almost the same time! LoL It took me a couple hours to post my my first post over at the new thread I started to continue this conversation! Between mommy duty and things it took me awhile and then when I posted, behold! you had posted a similar line of thinking...:D

Nah....not really....you've stated your position and used Bible to try and make it fit.

No, I don't agree, but I am sure you're exhausted from the discussion as I, but for the sake of other readers I felt compelled to continue the conversation elsewhere. I have no interest in convincing you of my "position" but rather be sure that we use the Bible as our guide book. Not to allow history or commentaries or the sadness of a sinful situation affect my judgment when the Bible is crystal clear.

Back to the original theme!
 

Getting back to the original point of this thread there are some that argue that it is unfair on the divorcee to remain alone. Now if (as some argue, the innocent party is free to re-marry) then what rule is there to say that the guilty party isn’t free? As the same rule does seem to apply to both regardless of who put away who.

When Mt.5:32 is looked at as it stands and not interpreted according to someone who we know or a popular preacher that we like who has been re-married. Then can the guilty party re-marry if they have run off with someone else? Now some may argue that this isn’t addressing believers but even if it is not, then that makes it all the more serious because if it applies to them then our standing is higher!

Some may say that “because they were divorced on the grounds of fornication that they are now free to re-marry again” but is that what is being taught by Christ, or is that what we have imposed into the text because of our straying culture?

Personally I don’t think that the violation of the marriage covenant permits re-marriage for the either party without the possibility of it being adultery. I may be wrong but I am open to know more on this subject. And before I rub someone up the wrong way – all I am doing is challenging us (including myself) to truly understand the words of Jesus on something that He takes very seriously.

Mt.5:32 “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.”

Remember, He doesn’t say “But the law once said to you” – He says “But I say unto you”.

This does seem to point out that even the innocent party in a divorce situation is not free to remarry let alone the one that has put her away. Surely a person can not be an adulterer on the basis of being put away as Christ does say; “causeth her to commit adultery”.

So this must be meaning that she is not a valid candidate as a future spouse (what do you think?). The statement again does seem to be aimed at the woman’s present marital status (from God’s perspective) and her position regarding any future spouse.
If she has been “put away” on the basis of fornication on her part then how can she re-marry without committing adultery? and if she is divorced on any other grounds she still commits adultery, so a second marriage doesn’t seem to be an option.

The following statement puts a divine barrier in front of any ‘would be’ husband “and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” All of this makes me think that re-marriage is out of the question, but what is permissible is the “putting away” of a spouse on the grounds of fornication.

Remember, this is NT grace and not old covenant law, the words of Jesus are the final rule on all things and not the culture of our day. This may come across as a little insensitive or breaking the politically correct rules of 21st century thought but I honestly seek to know what the hard and fast rule on divorce and re-marriage before this thread overruns its course.

If I am asked to attend or play part in a marriage it is vital to me that I am clear in my conscience concerning something that God is or is not joining together. There are many people who are convinced that they are married in God’s eyes who are anything but that (e.g. common law marriage, gay marriage etc). There are others who have run off with someone else’s spouse and after the dust has settles and the scares are not as prominent they decided to make a wrong look right by getting the state’s blessing upon their actions – is this marriage? Is this a joining together by God?

I honestly seek truth here – I have no axe to grind – what are your thoughts?


God bless

PaulB


:confused:

Hello PaulB!

I hope you don't mind; I just quoted the pieces of your post that I am responding to directly...

First of all, I must say that Jesus' words are not pure "NT grace" as the New Testament was not fully in effect yet (Hebrews 9:16-17.) I think Jesus always dealt with people according to the law. And as Paul is OUR apostle, his writing (and any writing that does not oppose his) should be "the final rule on all things."

I believe we DO have scripture to prove that the guilty/innocent have different rules to go by; consider:

I Corinthians 7:10-11
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

AND:

I Corinthians 7:27-28
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; ...

The woman that did the leaving in verses 10-11 IS COMMANDED NOT TO REMARRY! The man who was "loosed" in verses 27-28 IS TOLD THAT IF HE REMARRIES, HE HAS NOT SINNED - that means he is NOT committing adultery!

I am saying that it looks like the man in verses 27-28 is the innocent party...the one who got left. He didn't "depart;" he was "loosed." That sounds more like a passive action, something that was imposed upon him.

I have a question too...is the rule of conduct different for the man than for the woman? Is it coincidence that a woman is the subject of verses 10-11 and a man is the subject of verses 27-28? The woman is said to be bound by the law to her husband; the same is NOT said of the man...and the woman was made for the man! Thoughts?

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Sis. Pam,

You bring up a great consideration...I have always thought that a woman seemed to have different expectations than a man did.

I think this goes all the way back to the fall when Eve was cursed -

and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Then all through the OT while a man was "allowed" more than one wife, the wife was certainly not allowed. And as you mentioned the verses are allowing remarriage for a man, but not a wife...unless it is a widow...Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh This could be why a widow woman is given permission to remarry but only in the Lord.

I Cor 7:39  The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

Because that's the only instance she is allowed to...Oh! And then she is allowed to remarry if her unbelieving husband departs...

I Cor. 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Great, great points Pam! I am forming a new standard :) I'm certainly going to study more on this!

Considering our polygamy discussion what if the man remarried after he was loosed then the wife wants to be reconciled to her husband? :D LoL I wonder how many more scenarios we can come up with? ;)

Jennifer said:

Are a man's wife and and the children she bore to him, regardless of how many he has, any less of his own house than a widowed mother or aunt? Does the ex-muslim christian man kick them all out of his house? Should he keep all his children but deprive them of their mothers?

Amanda said:

Sin sure does create nasty and awful consequences doesn't it!?! What a horrible situation.

Wow Amanada, well did Isaiah say of his generation, Christ of his, and mine of you:

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 15
King James Bible

How can you possibly claim that you have any love at all with a response like that. I'm not even going to address the fact that you are DEAD WRONG on this issue, I'm sure the Lord will explain that to you in due time. But your lack of love is simply ASTOUNDING!! It reminds me of the doctrine of corban:

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Mark 7
King James Bible

And Jesus pronouncement? Woe unto you, hypocrites. Woe unto you people who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe unto you people who have NO LOVE. You consider your man made rules more important than men's lives.

Again I have only one thing to say to you Amanda, WOE UNTO YOU!

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I've had a lot of time to think about this thread and am still trying to reconcile all these things. I told my husband this afternoon that I feel I may have come down a bit harshly on this subject...

The statement I made: "Sin sure does create nasty and awful consequences doesn't it!?! What a horrible situation."

I am not sure how this is terribly unloving as it is SO very true!? SIN is horrible and wicked...and brings about awful consequences. You all act as if they were to stay married, this man and his wives, that they would grow up with a happy life. Just look at the lifestyles of the men in the OT...Certainly not what I would call a great family life!

I am not suggesting that this man abandon his family either. I was merely thinking that living with them as husband and wife and all the duties that entails does not appear to be right in Scripture.

Again, I am looking at this all over and I hope in the next couple of days to prayerfully study what Scripture has to say.

But I can say I still believe we have to stay in the context.

Please, offer me verses that would help me understand this better.

Bro. John,

I had quite a lengthy reply to your post above and it got deleted :( But it is probably better this way, as it was not profitable for anyone but myself.

I found that in an effort to correct Jessica in her use of the Scriptures I was getting more and more dumbfounded at what manner she was distorting Bible to prove a point. I think, correct me if I am wrong, that I kept my Scriptures within their context.

But because of that, after reading my posts, it does appear that I come off calloused, but honestly I am not. I was discussing this with my husband and 2 of our church ladies today and I was very saddened at the circumstances that people get into...or get saved out of, yet still have to live with the consequences. We were discussing Mormon's and how all these poor teenage girls and younger get married off to men older than their Daddys yet that is all the life they know...Just so sad...

I know a post will not change your opinion of me, but I did want to say that I was getting increasingly agitated by a lot of things throughout this thread and got the focus off of the "situation"...That was wrong.

P.S. Please keep in mind that this is a hypothetical situation...I am certain that my comments would not have been so "calloused" were this someone in real life...And I have many many people that know me in real life that could vouch for that.

Amanda,

God created mankind with freewill and the ability to choose to either believe what He says about Himself or to believe a lie. I believe the Lord created mankind this way, different from the angelic host, for the purpose of sharing the love that the Godhead shares with Himself, with man. It's something infinitely better than what the angels have. The Father and His Son chose to incarnate His Son as a Man. For Eternity. Jesus will always be a Man. He will always have the scars in His hands and the hole in His side. He did that for us. For you and for me, and for the poverty-stricken black woman in Sub-Saharan Africa with a husband and co-wives, and children that they all raised together.

The quality of life that we enjoy in modern western society for the last 50, 100, 200 years is like a second in the 6000 years of human history. We are just a small fraction of a percent of the people who have lived on this earth. The vast, vast majority of human beings have lived lives of poverty, hunger, pain, suffering and spiritual darkness. In their struggle to survive they haven't had their piano lessons, their little league games, their computer time, their vacations and the relative ease that we enjoy today. We shouldn't look at human history or the Bible, which was finished over 2000 years ago, through our exalted perspective of our riches in Christ even now, or our material blessings. Most people haven't lived as we live.

God's plan for the redemption of men and women for Himself is much larger than our present church age. Women have been so blessed by the church type of marriage of one man and one wife. But it didn't used to be that way, and in some places it still isn't that way. I find polygamy much more than distasteful. It would never happen, but if my husband and I lived in a country which allowed for polygamy, and he decided to take another wife, I would leave him even if I had to live on the street as a beggar. I wouldn't if I had dependent children, though. It would be an act of supreme cruelty to me. But he would never do that to me. I believe the Lord would be angry at the cruelty. You and I weren't raised with the expectation or the ability to handle something like that. I can't imagine the jealousy and the hurt of having other wives competing for my husbands affections. Having him love another, younger wife better. Perhaps coming to despise me as I age. Men can do that. But we have to accept that having multiple wives is in the Law of Moses. We must recognize that women have had to bear that hardship for most of human history.

If we're honest with ourselves, I think it really is evident that there were men with more than one wife who were saved and came into the churches in Paul's day. Paul made clear that deacons, pastors, bishops, could only have one wife. He showed the pattern the church was to follow. There's no difference today. In heathen cultures where multiple wives are allowed by law, if a man with more than one wife is saved, he doesn't have to put one or all of them and his children away. He doesn't have to stop sleeping with them. They are his wives. The marriages are recognized by God. If the early church didn't require the putting away of wives, why would the church today? Has there been an addition to the Bible since the Apostles day that would change how we should handle the situation? No.

In my last post I tried to give perspective on the issue with the few pieces of information about modern day and history of polygamy. I included the commentaries to show that I'm not giving some unheard of interpretation of scripture. The Bible is the most important thing in my life. Through it and the Holy Spirit I live my life in Christ. I believe every single word in that Book. I can handle being accussed of wresting the Bible to fit my own private ideas. That doesn't bother me too much. I am sad that it's so clear to me yet supposed brothers and sisters insinuate that I am not fit to be among them. Of course, it's all insinuation, not direct communication, so it can easily be denied.
I'm more sad that the blessing of one man one woman marriage seems to be such a sacred cow that some would directly disobey a clear command of Jesus for man not to put asunder what God has joined in order to keep a commandment of men.

You mentioned the Mormons that take underaged girls as wives. They are criminals and child-rapists, and if I was King or (Queen) I would put those who have underaged girls as wives and were having sex with them, to death for their crimes.

I remember a year or so ago when the authorities raided a Mormon "compound" and ripped the small children from their mothers and kept them with children's services for days or weeks, I don't remember. I cried because of the pain of the children and their mothers. Children's services is full of satanists and predators. Polygamy is illegal in this country but for the most part the authorities leave them alone because what's the solution? Stealing peoples children? That is menstealing and it is evil. Children are the property of their parents, not the state. God forbid that we would follow that path just so that we can remain comfortable in our happy little lives and not have to be disturbed by the presence of something strange to us. That is the opposite of Love. That is the willing destruction of the lives of people for whom Christ died. That's Satan's job, not ours. Our lives are not to be centered around rules, but centered in Christ's love for the lost and for His church.

I honestly see some Pharisees on this forum. Lately, legalism has become predominant, there remains little, if any, grace. Insinuations, dishonesty, unrighteous judgements, maliciousness. That's death, not life. If it continues this way you won't have to try to get me banned (disfellowshipped, what a joke!) I'll leave of my own accord. There would be nothing to keep me here.

Some interesting points!
 

Below are a few helpful links that go quite in depth concerning just about all of the issues raised on this thread. I will state before hand that they aren’t all KJB only sites but for those of us who are really seeking to know the truth on this issue. All you have to do is study the arguments presented and check them out (or even replace the passages that are quoted) with your own pure Bible. I may be going a little contrary to the grain of what some people have settled for on this matter, but believe me I am not pushing a thoughtless view, but attempting to raise constructive thought on a very serious subject.

It is like I said before and this is my driving conviction, that I do not want to play a part in any way, shape or form on something that is contrary to what has been ordained by God in Scripture. But what I do want to do is play every part in that which God has ordained in Scripture (if it is re-marriage then I want my conscience free Scripturally) but if it is contrary to Scripture then I also wish to have a free conscience when opposing it. I realise that these are sensitive issues and I am not trying to shoot people down or win an argument, my only aim is interact with many on something that is very important.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceL...osition_Paper/

http://www.cadz.net/ifthoumarry.html
http://www.cadz.net/marryburn.html

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/divorce2.html
http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/housechu/divorce.htm

Ps, I have no affiliation with any of these ministries, neither am I promoting them – all I am doing is presenting the good points that they are raising rather than writing a post that would take up a forum page by itself.

I sincerely hope and pray that the points raised produce healthy thinking and important fruitful discussion. At least we will all know more about the subject concerned when we have finished!


God bless

PaulB

Hi Pam
 

Firstly, it is nice to interact with you and secondly, no I don't mind you partially quoting me!

I do have to say though that every word of our Lord Jesus Christ is the final revelation of God to us (as He is THE WORD in flesh). Paul is not an authority above Jesus, he was a chosen instrument who related who Christ is and what He said but to the gentile churches that he established.

How is it possible to claim that Jesus always dealt with OT law when He was clearly proclaiming what He said as the very authority that was to stand after the law (e.g. Mt.5:31 "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:32 But I say unto you,
Paul was an apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ - he was not a seperate revelation from Him. So when we are looking at the given subject of this thread, Paul in 1 Cor.7 is not acting independently from the revelation of NT grace that he had recieved but in accordance with it.

God bless

PaulB

Re: "Acceptable/Unacceptable Reasons for Divorce"
 

greenbear said:
Aloha sister Jennifer,

I urge you to not let some of these new-comers get you down. I have watched this thread (and others) and have withheld commenting, because I don't appreciate being laughed at by a woman, but I can no longer forebear.

Your attempts to discuss or "dialogue" with some of these people is futile because they have little or no interest to know the truth. It's "questions", "Questions" - always more "QUESTIONS"! :( And then, after you answer their questions, it's: "well - what if"; "couldn't it possibly be"; or "I see it this way"; ad nauseam. Lately, with the notable exception of brother Presswood (who has had some excellent edifying comments) we have had very little Scripturally edifying comments and plenty of "private opinion", "speculation", "supposition", and "conjecture". :confused:

I refuse to "engage" these people - there is no profit in spending all of our time engaged in: "foolish and unlearned QUESTIONS"! :tsk:
I believe that you have honestly and sincerely tried to answer (with both Scripture and historical facts) the foolish question that was posed (about the Muslim man with 7 wives) - only to be met with the typical Humanist response. I urge you - DO NOT let these people DRIVE YOU AWAY from this Forum! :( Both you and sister Jassy have been a "breath of fresh air" to the AV1611 Bible Forums (Imagine: two Western Christian women who are intelligent, articulate, and knowledgeable; but who also have spiritual discernment and understanding; and yet still possess "a meek an quiet spirit" [1Peter 3:4] - I didn't think it was possible! :rolleyes: ;) :D)

I am sure that there are many others on this Forum that feel the same way as I do, but have held their "peace", because they do not want this Forum to end over a division over a foolish question to begin with.

I know that I have said this before, but it still is true - I have been a Christian for nearly 51 years now, and have been a King James Bible believer for 41 of those years (though I never used any other "bible"). I have both seen and heard some of the most outrageous things that "Christians" have done during those years, and have learned that there is only one way to deal with "Christian" doubters, gnatstrainers, questioners and skeptics - AVOID THEM! There is NO "edification" and there is NO "profit".

I would not have posted these comments, except for the fact that you have indicated that you might depart from the AV1611 Bible Forums over these futile exchanges. This Forum needs and appreciates your participation - be patient, I've been a member of the AV1611 Forums for nearly a year and a half, and I have felt the way you feel many times. There is no other place on the net (that I know of) where you can meet, and fellowship, and learn, like this Forum; if you or sister Jassy ever leave (over the conduct on this Forum of other "Christians") it would be a genuine loss to the entire Forum.

Humanism, Casuistry, and Sophism cannot be "changed" through discussion, dialogue, or debate. It is an exercise in "futility" to try! :frusty:

Hey!

As far as Jesus and Paul...Paul is NOT speaking "in accordance with" Jesus! Paul directly contradicts what Jesus said - comparing I Corinthians 7:10-11 and 27-28 with Matthew 19:9. This apparent contradiction can only be explained by "rightly dividing the word of truth." (II Tim. 2:15) Jesus deals with Jews that are under the law, kingdom and millenial doctrine, and such - he's not talking to "church age" Christians. Paul DOES speak directly TO US - see Romans 11:13 and 15:16; Gal. 2:2 and 2:8; Col. 1:21-29; I Tim.2:7; II Tim. 1:11...(Gentiles being defined as "Uncircumcision" in Eph.2:11)

Paul also contradicts Jesus concerning salvation: When asked how to get eternal life, Jesus told the man in Matthew 19:16-17 that he should "keep the commandments;" Paul says in Galatians 3:21, "...if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." And again, in Titus 3:5, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,..." And Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Jesus' statement ("keep the commandments") has WORKS necessary for salvation AS OPPOSED TO PAUL who makes it clear that our salvation does NOT involve works! (Works AFTER salvation/because of salvation are a different story!)

All this to say that there's just no getting around the fact that Paul says that if a man marries AFTER HE IS LOOSED (divorced,) HE HAS NOT SINNED (I Cor. 7:27-28!) What else can we do with that passage? Somebody told me that Paul was saying we should be more concerned with the furtherance of the gospel (or something to that effect,) BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE BIBLE PLAINLY SAYS!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Aloha, brother George.

On another post you once told me that it took you years to come to understand sophist and humanist arguments and you hoped it wouldn't take that long for me. I've certainly had a few lessons in it, lately. I'm not sure what my motivation is in getting involved and in continuing in these fruitless debates, whether it be pride, caring what others think of me, or not understanding that the ability to discern the truth about something is in large part a matter of the state of the heart, not the mind. Still, it helps if a person is able to think their way out of a brown paper bag. Satan's kingdom has really done a number on westerner's hearts, and their ability to think. If somebody like that disagrees with me, I begin to think I must really be on to something. If someone like my husband, you, Brandon or Tony, and some others on the forum, have a different take on something then I'm going to take a pretty close look at why I think what I think. Discernment builds upon itself. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. Matthew 25:29 Now some may say I am taking this verse out of it's context. I say it is a principle that does apply to receiving spiritual understanding from the Lord, among other things.

Thank you for your encouraging words about me and Jassy. I recognized the Spirit that is in her immediately and as you may know, she has become a dear friend in the Lord. I recognize the same in Renee and Jaebyrd. Neither posts a lot but when they do they speak the truth in love.

I'll try to Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Proverbs 26:4 and try to avoid many other various faults I may have. Participating on a forum is a sure fire way to come to recognize your faults! They are right there in black and white and it usually doesn't go away, either! I've looked at other "christian" forums on the net as well and I think I can safely say there is not one other forum that I could participate in. Not one.

May God bless you brother,

Jennifer

Sis Jen,

Your post #91 here was so eloquent, so to-the-point, and so inspired, that I didn't even feel a need to give my input. I know, from firsthand experience, how different the West looks at things. I have seen "other worlds" and other cultures, both Christian and not, and I can definitely say, from my own knowledge, that not all have the Westernized view of Christianity. It has plagued me for a long while, that the Western Christians are so focused on their own culture, that they fail to see that the Lord did not come for Americans ONLY. He came - and DIED FOR - the sins of ALL the world.

It has pained me that a church will send an evangelistic missionary over to Africa or Asia or wherever and think that their "good deed" is done and that they can open the minds of the people to the truth. Oftentimes what happens first is offensive to the people there, for the reason that Westernized Christians lack understanding and wisdom. This is why I have always felt that NATIVE evangelists, who understand the language, culture and people, are the very BEST evangelists. Simply provide them with the Bibles and literature they need! When we try to enforce our own thinking and culture upon others (think politics also!), it results in many hurt feelings, smashed toes, and misunderstandings.

I won't even bother to go into my own experiences in detail, for I feel that would be unprofitable here. Suffice it to say that I have lived in other parts of the world and I have seen and experienced what the everyday American will probably never see or experience. There are both positives and negatives in that.

I've also followed the leading of the Holy Spirit to befriend and witness to many people from other countries, religions, and cultures. In order to gain their respect, I have to respect them first. The minute you put them down for their beliefs, is the minute they stop listening to you and your window of opportunity to witness is CLOSED.

I do the majority of my witnessing on the internet - to Arab Muslims, to Chinese Buddhists, to Indian Hindus, etc. I have learned how to befriend them first, to gain their trust and understanding. This is not done in a few hours. This is not done in a few days. This is not done in a few weeks. This may not even be done in a few months!! With some, it has taken years of knowing them to be able to bring them the truth. God had to give me a lot of patience to do this. But, remember, I'm disabled, I don't go out much, and time is the gift that has been given to me.

Remember Paul saying:
1 Corinthians 9:19 - For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant to all, that I might gain the more.
20- And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 - To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 - To the weak because I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 - And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

So, I guess it amazes me that people would be so fast to pass judgment and shove aside those who don't share their particular "brand" of Christianity or their own WORLD UNDERSTANDING. One day there will be, I believe, an ecumenical religion thrust upon the world. It will be especially tragic when weak Christians fall for it and embrace it. It will be Satan's counterfeit religion and it will become enforced. Those without wisdom will be LOST for eternity.

I follow Paul and his teaching about GRACE. I also follow Paul in BECOMING whatever I wish to WIN for Christ!! Don't misunderstand, I do not lose myself in the process. This is an equation of GAIN, not LOSS, according to Paul.

Blessings to you sister,
Jassy

CORRECTION of my previous post
 

Well, here I am quoting myself. Sis Jennifer graciously pointed out my error, in private, in that paragraph. I encouraged her to post it here and correct me in public! She refused to do so! So here I am correcting myself and thanking sis Jen for being so kindhearted.

So, Jennifer said: "Christians can't be lost, and wisdom is not what saves Christians... belief in Christ does."

And she is absolutely correct. I thanked her for pointing out my error and I couldn't believe that I posted that kind of huge error!! WHAT WAS I THINKING?!

After thanking Jen, she then said "You are one easy correctee. Wow" :pound:

I feel very blessed by her friendship in Christ. Iron sharpens iron and that's the way it ought to be!

Jassy

Pam
 

Hi Pam! I don’t think that we are going to agree on anything in Scripture in the light of what you have just presented to me, as your rule of hermeneutics is like a Semitic form of preterism. When you start applying a rule of interpretation like that then that’s when you are forced into a position where you have to start pitching Paul’s teachings against those of His own Lord and Saviour. I’m sorry but that is just plain old heresy and not a right division of the word!

PaulB

Well, PaulB, thank you very much for being kind in your answer to me; that is what makes these forum discussions possible even through disagreement! But, yeah, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree!

I read through the links that you had posted with various teaching on this topic...some of them varied from each other. What is your position? I mean, what is Paul saying/teaching in I Cor. 7:27-28, if he is not condoning remarriage after divorce? Please forgive me if you've posted your position already and I've missed it!

Thanks again!
Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Re: "Acceptable/Unacceptable Reasons for Divorce"
 

Aloha PaulB,

I am in agreement that custer (Pam) has misspoken when she says:

custer said:
Paul "directly CONTRADICTS what Jesus said"? "Paul also contradicts Jesus concerning salvation:" I trow not!

I refuse to get drawn into the "divorce debate"; but in regards to what the Lord said about salvation, and what the Apostle Paul said later: Had Paul been present (remember - "Historical context") at the time the Lord said what He said, and if Paul said (at that time) what Paul said - Paul would have "directly contradicted" what The Lord said, BUT something happened between THE TIME that the Lord Jesus Christ said what He said and THE TIME that Paul said what he said - it's called the "ATONEMENT" (the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ) the PAYMENT FOR OUR SINS was NOT YET MADE when the Lord spoke His words; the PAYMENT WAS MADE when Paul spoke his words. {The PAYMENT WAS MADE when the Lord Jesus Christ uttered the words: "It is FINISHED" [John 19:30]}

The Apostle Paul received the revelation of the "mysteries of God" directly from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Is it possible that the Lord would teach Paul to "CONTRADICT" what He said? I trow not! Custer (Pam) simply used a "poor choice" of words in trying to explain her position. How is it possible that Lord Jesus Christ would "contradict" Himself - IF He was the One who instructed the Apostle Paul?
If we follow the Scriptural instructions ("rightly dividing the word of truth") we will recognize the "Historical Context" i.e. the "TIME" when the words were spoken; and we will discern the "Doctrinal Application" i.e. "WHO" is being spoken to; and it will become apparent that there is NO CONTRADICTION - there is a DIVISION (of "time" & "congregation") between what the Lord Jesus Christ said and what the Apostle Paul said. The Lord Jesus Christ was speaking to the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" (ONLY) BEFORE THE ATONEMENT; the Apostle Paul was addressing the church of God at at Corinth AFTER THE ATONEMENT, and AFTER the Jews had rejected the Jewish Apostles message to the nation of Israel to repent. {The Scriptures are talking about two DIFFERENT "TIMES" and two DIFFERENT "AUDIENCES" (i.e. "congregations"). There is NO "CONTRADICTION", but there is an obvious "DIVISION".}

All Scripture has Three Applications:

1. HISTORICAL

2. DOCTRINAL

3. SPIRITUAL

In order to rightly divide the word of God we must always keep those three things in mind when we study.

Brother George,

Do you by chance have a study you've already written about the three applications of scripture? If you do, I would be interested in reading it. :D

Jennifer

Sister Jassy,

Sister, I was struck by the use of these words. We all pass judgment every day on many things...it's in our nature. We can't help it. When a decision is made on any topic a judgment is being made. Now if you are suggesting by passing judgment we shove aside, I honestly don't think ANYone on here at least has suggested ANYone be shoved aside?

And if we are not to "shun or shove aside or pass judgment" on those without the faith shouldn't we even more so treat our brethren the same way?

Because one judges that an act is a sin based on the Bible, and we teach it as such how is that shoving aside a brother? Are men not to preach sin for fear of passing judgment? For fear of ostracizing a brother? If my pastor or husband preaches on being unfruitful and I am convicted I am not shunned. My pastor can teach right and wrong and I still have the free will to ignore it. It still doesn't change right and wrong.

I have seen these comments across the forum and don't understand how making a judgment based on Scripture equals shunning?

Please, I welcome you to explain it to me.

PaulB,
Since my posts are being delayed, some of them are tending to get lost in the conversation...I am mentioning this because I want to make sure that you saw that I have a response/question for you in my post #100.

And since some believe I have "misspoken," my husband says I need to clarify my post #95...

The impetus for my post about contradictions was a couple of statements made by PaulB:
"the words of Jesus are the final rule on all things" AND
"every word of our Lord Jesus Christ is the final revelation of God to us."

These phrases were a 'red flag' to me indicating that PaulB and I were not 'on the same page' when it comes to rightly dividing! Sometimes it is necessary to know where someone is coming from dispensationally if one is going to discuss a Bible issue with them...anybody's response to my proposed contradictions would let me know something about their thoughts on rightly dividing!

Surely we are all going to agree that ultimately the author of ALL the passages I cited is GOD himself. (II Tim. 3:16) And the God who gave us this completed revelation in the Authorized Version is the God who gave US - present-day church-age Christians right now - the illustrious privilege of being able to read these passages together, back-to-back, within a minute of each other if we so desire. The point is (and what I was trying to get across to PaulB) that WITHOUT APPLYING DISPENSATIONAL PRINCIPLES (I.E. 'RIGHTLY DIVIDING,') the plain words of Matthew 19:16-17 do not agree with Gal. 3:21, Titus 3:5, or Eph. 2:8-9. The 'plan of salvation,' the way to get saved, what to do to obtain eternal life - IS NOT THE SAME in these passages! Things that are DIFFERENT are not the SAME...they contradict!
(Just like James 2:24 contradicts Romans 3:28 UNLESS YOU RIGHTLY DIVIDE!) Since these 'plans of salvation' are DIFFERENT, we must choose by rightly dividing...if one (TODAY) chooses to try to obtain eternal life by keeping the commandments, as Jesus said in Matthew 19, HE WILL DIE AND GO TO HELL! So, I was trying to establish the importance of rightly dividing!
(Same thing on the divorce/remarriage issue; if the verses don't say the same thing, we are going to have to choose which one is FOR US!)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Jassy'sJassy's(I added the bolding and color and font size.)



Luke 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a man with more than one wife to enter into the kingdom of God.

Brandon, please don't ban me for Bible correcting...

Jesus didn't say that! Jesus said:

Luke 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


Revelation 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

Jassy's thoughts brought those scriptures to mind in my post above.

Posting via email and on forums can get a little hazardous. You can't see the person you're communicating with and you can't stop them and ask for clarification and such and then you get on a long thread and it gets a little confusing going back over the posts figuring exactly who said what. I always try and keep that in mind when posting and try and have a little more patience (which can be tough for me) because most likely I will never personally meet any of you until we get to heaven so I have to remember there are actual people on the other end of these posts. I thought about this as I was reading your (Pam) posts. I think I understand what you're saying although I probably would've worded it a bit different. I probably wouldn't say "Paul contradicted Jesus", but "that they were speaking to different audiences" or "unless you rightly divide the word of truth it will appear they are contradicting each other when in actuality they were speaking to different audiences". Every dispensationalist on this forum would agree with that and many have stated the importance of recognizing who Jesus was talking to versus who Paul was talking to. Correct me if I have misquoted or misrepresented you.

I know sometimes folks tend to or appear to come across harsh, but I believe that can be attributed to this is being a forum full of folks zealous for God's word and His truth. You just have to make up your mind your only goal is to know God and His word, then study His word and post what you believe He has shown you. Sometimes folks are going to agree with you and sometimes they ain't. Sometimes you may get misunderstood and sometimes you're going to misunderstand others. If you're the kind of person who can't take criticism, correction, or a little heat you might get discouraged, but hey its just a message board. Unless someone has developed the technology to be able to reach through the computer and grab my neck and start choking me I think I will be okay. I like to be challenged about what I believe or how else will I grow? One thing I am sure of, this forum will teach you to get in God's Word and find out what you believe and why you believe it which will keep you from getting tripped up by all of the false religion that's going on today inside and outside of the church.

Thanks, Craig!

It does appear that you knew what I was trying to say...I just always find that pointing out apparent contradictions is a surefire (and quick) way to determine where someone stands dispensationally!

And thanks for the general forum advice; I really appreciate it...this is my first forum experience, and I am still learning. I see things very 'black and white' and have a hard time reading my own posts through someone else's eyes, if you know what I mean!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Sister Pam :D

Aint THAT the truth! :pound: :spy:

I told Bobby that I knew what you meant, but didn't know how to word it differently. But I'm sure we can all vouch that I'm not exactly the most edjeeekated gal on here. :amen:

What more can I say?
 

Hi Amanda (My fellow Sophist!!!!!!!!) :D

I also see things very black and white the trouble is that there are some who have a great deal of difficulty seeing things through my eyes (probably because I approach things from the plain meaning of Scripture rather than using C.I. Scofield’s notes as my rule of faith!)

Keep your head held high you’re doing us all proud!;)

God bless

PaulB

Ha! You know Brother Paul I still don't know what that word means!? :lol:

I guess I should look it up...

Any suggestions on which dictionary I should use to look it up? :D

Sis Jen,

Forgive me if I don't quite understand the point of your post. Were you correcting me? Supporting me? Or??? Not sure that I understand. Sorry about that. Can you help clarify the reason for your post, sis?

Thanks!
Jassy

Sis Amanda,

I think there is a huge difference between JUDGING and DISCERNING. The Lord Jesus Christ is going to be judging us according to Paul's gospel:

Romans 2:16 - In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my [Paul's] gospel.

We are not called upon to be a judge. But those that are spiritually strong, should have the ability to DISCERN, using the Word of God.

Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Hebrews 5:14 - But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

1 Corinthians 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

We are supposed to judge THINGS - to see if they are spiritual (from God's Word) but not PEOPLE.

According to the Bible, Satan is the "god of this world" - so we do need to be able to judge between BELIEF and UNBELIEF, yes.

I may be wrong about this. And if we are to sit in judgment of other people, here and now in the church - I don't want to be in that position.

Jassy

Too funny!!! If you're referring to "sophist," I had to look it up too! (I'll give you a hint: it wasn't a compliment!!!)

Back on subject, though, will someone PLEASE expound I Corinthians 7:27-28? I just want to know why the man in that passage is committing adultery when he remarries if the Bible says he has not sinned!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

I Corinthians 5:1-13 and 6:1-5 and 10:15 and 14:24-25

In I Cor. 2, where you quoted verse 14, "discerned" is clarified in verse 15 as "judgeth."

Compare "discern" and "judge" in Gen. 31:32 and 31:37. The two words are also together in I Kings 3:9, where "judge" is again defined as "discern." (and in verse 11, we find "to discern judgment.")

There's a plain definition for "discern" in Ezekiel 44:23, and it is right there (again) connected with the words "judgment," "judge," and "judgments" in verse 24. There is another connection in Luke 12:56-57.

I've been fussed on for my use of some words on this forum and challenged to define words scripturally...so my concordance has been getting a lot more use lately! I am having way too much FUN with it!!!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Juding people
 

1 Cor.11:31 "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged."

I don't see myself as a thing! I am a person!:eyebrows:

No, but seriously!

Judging people is very necessary for their own good - if it is done from a pure heart with the intent of restoring someone.

Mt.7:1-5 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye

Our Lord id obvioulsly telling people to "Judge correctly" rather than hypocritically - He is not warning to cease from judging, but doing so with a pure heart.

God bless

PaulB

Interesting quote. The very basis for dispensationalism is:

1. You must hold to a literal interpretation of God’s Word.
2. You must carefully examine who God is addressing.
3. You must always place Scripture in its proper context.


http://www.preservedwords.com/dispen1a.htm

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/jmacdis.htm

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/sermon.htm

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/dispen.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.com/BlueDISP.html

http://withchrist.org/mjs/gospels.htm

I Cor. 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Sister Jassy,

I understand what you are trying to say, but judge is the word the Bible uses...Not discern. It sounds nicer though doesn't it!? :)

Perhaps, we have a wrong picture of what it means to judge a brother....? The Bible gives us guidelines...Matthew 18:15, I Cor 4:1-5. It really all boils down to our heart attitude. When my children do wrong and I have to discipline them, I am not gleeful, gloating, self-righteous or any such. Out of LOVE I have to discipline them. Same type of situation here. I have seen this happen a time or 2 in my life and in my experience there are tears on both sides and it a SAD thing...But PTL the sin is dealt with and often a brother is restored to fellowship.

We are not to condemn them, "sit in judgment" or any other such word.

Consider these passages where people are actually judged and their sin dealt with...One cannot deal with the sin w/ out the sinner...

I Cor 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.


Paul here is telling those Christians in the church to judge the believers in their assembly if they are involved in the sins that are listed here, sins that are commonly reported...Paul has already dealt with this before and rather than heeding his words here they are puffed up and proud that the man is still in their midst, perhaps hoping to "love" him out of his sin. Obviously that is not what Paul told them to do. He told them to put him away mourning not self-righteously, holier than thou...but with a spirit of compassion that he would repent.

I honestly think that if you were to consider the heart attitude, the sin being dealt with and the effect of that sin on the body of believers, the effect of that sin on the man himself that you would see why a judgment needs to be made...If you want to use the word discern then I've no problem with that but the Bible does use judge...But discern doesn't bring to mind any action behind it...making a judgment puts action on the discernment if you will. :)

Now ideally we should catch these sins in ourselves...Consider this:

I Cor 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

I hope I've been able to explain this correctly :)

There we go. Enough rope. Permanent banishment?

Oh, wait! Amanda wasn't insinuating anything because we know she would never do that. :)

Acceptable/Unacceptable
 

Amanda,

This one I cannot keep my mouth shut on. You should have quoted all of the verses below not just from verse 30


1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

1 Corinthians 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

1 Corinthians 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

1 Corinthians 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

As you can see, here we are speaking of The Lord's Supper. When we eat unworthily The Lord judges us as only He knows our hearts. Ye also judge yourself for you know your own heart.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

There is only one way to judge righteously. By the Book! God has given some more wisdom, discernment and understanding then others. I'm simple, these three previous things I covet. I do not desire knowledge as some do for knowledge tends to puff up people and is only for the brain.

I am blessed that I have an Elder/Husband to ask questions of at home and do not have to bring unlearned and foolish questions that gender strife to this
forum. The wife of an Elder should render him due honor so the Church by her example can believe that the Words he brings forth are truth.

Well I think that was three cents worth this time. Say what you may, that is all I have

Renee