Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228078 | ||
Beja Marriage consists of two vital parts, the taking of oaths before God and the consummation of those oaths by sexual union. This is even recognised by churches which do not allow divorce. If the marriage is not consummated by sexual union they consider that it can then be annulled, whatever the oaths made, because Scripture teaches that sexual union is an essential part of marriage. Thus an unmarried pair having had sexual union should marry. That is the essence of what the Old Testament was teaching. Having consummated the marriage before it has taken place they are then bound in God's eyes to take oaths of loyalty before God. Their very sexual union has bound them to it. And this is because the sexual union has made them one person (Genesis 2.24). The two have become one (1 Corinthians 6.16). It was because of the hardness of men's hearts that God made allowance for man's weakness. BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO (Matthew 19.8). Thus what you are describing as marriage is the lesser version which is not real marriage in accordance with God's purposes. It is lesser form of marriage, a sinful form of marriage, ssomething which falls short of true marriage. You may interpret Deuteronomy 24 as referring to unfaithfulness, but the Rabbis did not do so, and the Hebrew does not state it. It simple refers to some lack. That is why Jesus said that they allowed divorce 'for any cause'. However, Deuteronomy 24 does not permit divorce. It declares that if divorce has taken place and one party has remarried, the two can never again be married. Why not? Because that party has by sexual union become one with another. Thus for them to remarry is forbidden. So you are in fact wrong in saying that sexual union with another does not (in God's eyes)cancel marriage. It does. The fact that as a result of the innocent party forgiving there can be a renewal of that marriage by further sexual union does not mean that God did not see the marriage as broken. Jesus' teaching demonstrates that that is exactly how God saw it. That is why He stated that in that case divorce was permissible. The view of the Jews was that adultery ended marriage. That is why Joseph determined to put away Mary. Betrothal was a pre-marriage contract only breakable by adultery. So it was the same as marriage. No God's purpose was not that marriage should go on at all costs. God purposed that marriage be non-adulterous. It was man who messed things up. Anything following that was not God's purpose. It was thus not true marriage as God intended it to be. |
||||||
2 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | DocTrinsograce | 228102 | ||
Dear biblicalman, Although, upon this particular topic, I find Pastor Beja's argument more persuasive than I do your own, I am grateful that you have joined our forum. Being witness to this discussion, between two of my fellow Baptists, is interesting and informative. Excuse me, this is a bit off topic: If I may be permitted, I would like to offer a caution, one that I find generally problematic in our day -- and uniquely problematic in our forum. Perhaps my Jewish heritage raises my sensitivity to the issue -- but it may also provide a unique perspective. Christians often feel an affinity to Judaism because of the common roots of the Old Testament. Indeed, attend any Shabbat service and you will easily discern the similarity. The most poignant moment is when the congregation turns toward the door and say "Baruch haba b'Shem Adonai" (blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord). However, that similarity is entirely a matter of appearance. Surprisingly, there are some Christians who are observant of Jewish law, even beyond simple Sabbatarianism. Judaizers are common throughout our world -- Galatians and Hebrews notwithstanding. In addition, there are many American Dispensationalists who teach that Jews are somehow saved outside of Christ. Both these groups fail to understand the Gospel. As a Jewish convert to Christianity, I want to emphasize Rabbinic thinking is expressly, overtly, and intentionally anti-Christ. That does not mean that everything they say is wrong, only that it is entirely counter to the instruction of the Holy Spirit; i.e., counter to sola scriptura. There is value in understanding Jewish thought during and prior to the time of Christ. However, only as a means of comprehending the context of a passage. Consequently, let us take exceeding care about giving the many silent readers of our forum any expectation of value in Halakah as a guideline for Christian orthodoxy or orthopraxy. Rabbinic teaching will always miss the mark. In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228110 | ||
hi doc my point was the translation of a phrase in an old testament passage. The general consensus of the Rabbis may not lead to acceptable doctrine but it is very useful in deciding what Hebrew words mean to people who spoke Hebrew. i could have said in my view and according to my knowledge of Hebrew. but people might then have dismissed it. Jesus did not argue that the Scribes were wrong in their translation of the Hebrew. He said that Moses had spoken of divorce becos of the hardness of men's hearts. In fact both the Scribes and Beja misunderstood the real meaning of Deuteronomy 24. But that did not mean that the Scribes were incorrect in their translation. I agree completely that American dispensationalists who teach what you state are misinterpeting Scripture. I lay no emphasis on what the Rabbis teach, except as showing Jewish opinion. But I do respect their knowledge of Hebrew, even though they may sometimes fail to distinguish between their Hebrew and ancient Hebrew. May i suggest that you read what i actually wrote again |
||||||
4 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | DocTrinsograce | 228112 | ||
Dear biblicalman, I promise to read it again, sir. Notwithstanding, my caution still stands. In seven years on the forum, one gets a sense of what will be "read into" the most casual of assertions. That sense comes from many responses. Which has persuaded me that those responses are quite probably representative of the many non-responders. (Drop me an email sometime if you would like to discuss it further -- besides which, I would like to buttonhole you about Baptists in the UK.) In Him, Doc |
||||||