ADVERTISEMENT

We Will Not Let Hate Win

I never said any of that.

Do you agree with my answer on Deut. 24:1-4?
Proverbs 28:9 (NKJV)
9 One who turns away his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer is an abomination.

Turn your ear from hearing the law? Moral law.

Abomination in Prov. 28:9 in the Hebrew = to-ebaw which is the "abomination" relating to moral law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
Deut. 24:1-4

The original Edenic law of marriage said nothing about divorce (Gen. 2:18-25). Marriage is fundamentally a physical union ("one flesh"), so only a physical reason can dissolve it, and there are two such reasons: the death of one spouse (Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39) and adultery (Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:10). The adulterous man and woman were killed, leaving the innocent spouses free to remarry. The Law of Moses did not allow divorce for adultery because the guilty spouse was stoned to death for his or her sin.

Since the "uncleanness" ("something indecent," niv) couldn't be adultery, what was it that it permitted a man to divorce his wife? In our Lord's day, the rabbinical school of Hillel took a very broad view and interpreted "uncleanness" to mean "anything that displeased the husband." But the school of Rabbi Shammai took the narrow view that "uncleanness" meant some kind of sexual sin. (See Matt. 5:31-32; 19:1-9; Mark 10:1-12.) Jesus didn't define "uncleanness" but made it clear that the Mosaic Law of divorce was a concession and not a command. God permitted it because of the hardness of the human heart. However, it appears that Jesus did permit divorce if one of the spouses committed adultery. The assumption is that the innocent spouse was free to remarry; otherwise, why get a divorce?

When our Lord permitted divorce because of adultery, He was equating divorce with death. The church doesn't have the right to kill people for committing adultery or any other sin, but they can accept divorce as the equivalent of death, thus leaving the innocent partner free to remarry. Jesus affirmed the priority of the original Edenic law of marriage, but He also granted this concession. Of course, it's better that the guilty party confess the sin, repent, and be restored and forgiven; but this doesn't always happen. Sin is the great destroyer, and where the privileges are the highest, as in marriage, the pain of that sin is the greatest.

The "bill of divorcement" was an official document that protected the women from slander and abuse and also gave her the privilege of a second marriage. The time that was required to secure this document would give the husband opportunity to think the matter through and possibly reconsider. He would lose what was left of the marriage price or dowry, and that might be costly. Too many separations and divorces are the result of built-up emotions, festering wounds, and thoughtless words that could have been avoided if the spouses had been honest with each other, talked things over, and sought the Lord's help earlier in the problem.

Should her second marriage end in divorce, the woman was forbidden to return to her former husband because she had been "defiled" (Deut. 24:4). Perhaps this means that the consummation of the second marriage was considered adultery, because only death or adultery could dissolve the marriage. (Adultery is called "defilement" in Lev. 18:20 and Num. 5:13-14.) For her to return to the first husband would cheapen her and make her nothing but a piece of property that could be bought and sold at will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
Deut. 24:1-4

The original Edenic law of marriage said nothing about divorce (Gen. 2:18-25). Marriage is fundamentally a physical union ("one flesh"), so only a physical reason can dissolve it, and there are two such reasons: the death of one spouse (Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39) and adultery (Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:10). The adulterous man and woman were killed, leaving the innocent spouses free to remarry. The Law of Moses did not allow divorce for adultery because the guilty spouse was stoned to death for his or her sin.

Since the "uncleanness" ("something indecent," niv) couldn't be adultery, what was it that it permitted a man to divorce his wife? In our Lord's day, the rabbinical school of Hillel took a very broad view and interpreted "uncleanness" to mean "anything that displeased the husband." But the school of Rabbi Shammai took the narrow view that "uncleanness" meant some kind of sexual sin. (See Matt. 5:31-32; 19:1-9; Mark 10:1-12.) Jesus didn't define "uncleanness" but made it clear that the Mosaic Law of divorce was a concession and not a command. God permitted it because of the hardness of the human heart. However, it appears that Jesus did permit divorce if one of the spouses committed adultery. The assumption is that the innocent spouse was free to remarry; otherwise, why get a divorce?

When our Lord permitted divorce because of adultery, He was equating divorce with death. The church doesn't have the right to kill people for committing adultery or any other sin, but they can accept divorce as the equivalent of death, thus leaving the innocent partner free to remarry. Jesus affirmed the priority of the original Edenic law of marriage, but He also granted this concession. Of course, it's better that the guilty party confess the sin, repent, and be restored and forgiven; but this doesn't always happen. Sin is the great destroyer, and where the privileges are the highest, as in marriage, the pain of that sin is the greatest.

The "bill of divorcement" was an official document that protected the women from slander and abuse and also gave her the privilege of a second marriage. The time that was required to secure this document would give the husband opportunity to think the matter through and possibly reconsider. He would lose what was left of the marriage price or dowry, and that might be costly. Too many separations and divorces are the result of built-up emotions, festering wounds, and thoughtless words that could have been avoided if the spouses had been honest with each other, talked things over, and sought the Lord's help earlier in the problem.

Should her second marriage end in divorce, the woman was forbidden to return to her former husband because she had been "defiled" (Deut. 24:4). Perhaps this means that the consummation of the second marriage was considered adultery, because only death or adultery could dissolve the marriage. (Adultery is called "defilement" in Lev. 18:20 and Num. 5:13-14.) For her to return to the first husband would cheapen her and make her nothing but a piece of property that could be bought and sold at will.
Would you like to provide the name of the person who wrote this? I believe some, if not all of it, was written by Warren Wiersbe. Is that correct?

Should her second marriage end in divorce, the woman was forbidden to return to her former husband because she had been "defiled" (Deut. 24:4). Perhaps this means that the consummation of the second marriage was considered adultery, because only death or adultery could dissolve the marriage. (Adultery is called "defilement" in Lev. 18:20 and Num. 5:13-14.) For her to return to the first husband would cheapen her and make her nothing but a piece of property that could be bought and sold at will.
Here is the passage that addresses Deut. 24:4, which is not discussing marriage per se, but the action of a man remarrying his former wife.

Do you believe this action (which is called an abomination) is part of the moral law?
 
Please tell me this is all an elaborate setup to own @AC2020 for his longstanding fandom of Terrance Howard
 
Would you like to provide the name of the person who wrote this? I believe some, if not all of it, was written by Warren Wiersbe. Is that correct?


Here is the passage that addresses Deut. 24:4, which is not discussing marriage per se, but the action of a man remarrying his former wife.

Do you believe this action (which is called an abomination) is part of the moral law?
You don't agree with Warren Wiersbe?

That tells me all I need to know about you.

Discussion over groomer.
 
No O.T. law deals comprehensively with the issue of divorce. In the texts that mention it, the focus is to place limitations on the practice (cf. 22:19, 29). The conditions which permitted a bill of divorcement are first presented (vv. 1-3) as the circumstances for the law in v. 4, which is the focus of this passage. These verses do not institute, encourage, or approve divorce, but treat it as a practice already operating (cf. Matt 19:6, note). The precise meaning of "uncleanness" (the same word used in 23:14, lit. "nakedness") is no longer clear. It may refer to "indecency" or "improper behavior." It could not include adultery, which was punishable by death (except in cases where, for lack of evidence, a wife's guilt was only indicated by the curse of barrenness—cf. Num 5:21, note). In any case, if the man had presented his wife the bill of divorcement, and she left his house, remarried, and then found herself divorced again, she could not return and be reunited to her first husband (v. 4). This law would have stopped the practice of "loaning" wives for procreation, if such a practice was occurring or being contemplated in ancient Israel. Without restriction and legislation, divorce could become "legal" polygamy or "sanctioned" adultery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
You don't agree with Warren Wiersbe?

That tells me all I need to know about you.
Did I ever say I didn't agree with Warren Wiersbe? I simply asked you who was the author of what you posted, because it clearly wasn't you.
 
Did I ever say I didn't agree with Warren Wiersbe? I simply asked you who was the author of what you posted, because it clearly wasn't you.

Stop jumping to so many conclusions in your attempt to back out of a conversation you claimed to have wanted.
I'm not backing out.

I think I'm doing great copying and pasting while I'm driving down the road.

Is there an OT law against that?

You don't agree with Warren Wiersbe, do you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
Would you like to provide the name of the person who wrote this? I believe some, if not all of it, was written by Warren Wiersbe. Is that correct?


Here is the passage that addresses Deut. 24:4, which is not discussing marriage per se, but the action of a man remarrying his former wife.

Do you believe this action (which is called an abomination) is part of the moral law?
And it is discussing marriage (and divorce, not adultery).

If she had committed adultery, according to OT Mosaic law, she would have been put to death, along with the man she committed adultery with.

The word "uncleanness" used of the woman in v. 1 indicates the issue is a moral one, though not adultery.

According to the text, the husband would have the right of divorce in this case, again moral.

The word for "abomination" is the text is again "to-eba" again moral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
No O.T. law deals comprehensively with the issue of divorce. In the texts that mention it, the focus is to place limitations on the practice (cf. 22:19, 29). The conditions which permitted a bill of divorcement are first presented (vv. 1-3) as the circumstances for the law in v. 4, which is the focus of this passage. These verses do not institute, encourage, or approve divorce, but treat it as a practice already operating (cf. Matt 19:6, note). The precise meaning of "uncleanness" (the same word used in 23:14, lit. "nakedness") is no longer clear. It may refer to "indecency" or "improper behavior." It could not include adultery, which was punishable by death (except in cases where, for lack of evidence, a wife's guilt was only indicated by the curse of barrenness—cf. Num 5:21, note). In any case, if the man had presented his wife the bill of divorcement, and she left his house, remarried, and then found herself divorced again, she could not return and be reunited to her first husband (v. 4). This law would have stopped the practice of "loaning" wives for procreation, if such a practice was occurring or being contemplated in ancient Israel. Without restriction and legislation, divorce could become "legal" polygamy or "sanctioned" adultery.
Once again, do you believe the action cited as an abomination in Deut. 24:4, (which is the specific action of a man remarrying his former wife) is part of the moral law? Yes or no?
 
Abomination in Prov. 28:9 in the Hebrew = to-ebaw which is the "abomination" relating to moral law.
So what I understand your claim to be (I'm wanting to make sure so as not to misrepresent your claim) is that any time the word used in Proverbs 28:9 and Lev. 18:22 that some English translations of the Bible translate as "abomination" means that verse/passage is automatically referencing the moral law.

Is this a correct statement of your claim?
 
No need to do this while you are driving. Don't risk a car accident just so you can respond to this thread.
As I've stated before, I'm a very busy man.

This place is a nice oasis to make a quick glance and/or laugh in brief moments from comments I make or others.

No one is changing any minds around here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
Once again, do you believe the action cited as an abomination in Deut. 24:4, (which is the specific action of a man remarrying his former wife) is part of the moral law? Yes or no?
Here’s what MacArthur says, and I tend to agree.

This passage does not command, commend, condone or even suggest divorce. Rather, it recognizes that divorce occurs and permits it only on restricted grounds. The case presented here is designed to convey the fact that divorcing produced defilement. Notice the following sequence: 1) if a man finds an uncleanness (some impurity or something vile, cf. 23:14) in his wife, other than adultery, which was punishable under theocratic law by execution (cf. 22:22); 2) if he legally divorces her (although God hates divorce, as Mal. 2:16 says; He has designed marriage for life, as Gen. 2:24 declares; and He allowed divorce because of hard hearts, as Matt. 19:8 reveals; 3) if she then marries another man; 4) if the new husband dies or divorces her; then the woman according to Mosaic law could not return to her first husband (v. 4). This is so because she was “defiled” with such a defilement that was an abomination to the Lord and a sinful pollution of the Promised Land.

What constitutes that defilement? Only one thing is possible – she was defiled in the remarriage because there was no ground for the divorce. So when she remarried, she became an adulteress (Matt. 5:31-32) and thus defiled so that her former husband can’t take her back. Illegitimate divorce proliferates adultery.


If MacArthur is correct, the last paragraph speaks re: why this was a moral matter. And, adultery is a moral matter, I think most would agree on that.

That's the best I'm going to be able to do for you today. It's simply a matter of either you agreeing or not agreeing and there's no possible way for us to go forward on this one outside of that.

Or we can yell at each other across our front yards until our parents make us come in for dinner.
 
I'm not backing out.

I think I'm doing great copying and pasting while I'm driving down the road.

Is there an OT law against that?

You don't agree with Warren Wiersbe, do you?
Not to butt in here and depending on where you are, it may very well be against the law to text while driving. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
If MacArthur is correct, the last paragraph speaks re: why this was a moral matter. And, adultery is a moral matter, I think most would agree on that.
Well since this is the best you can do, I will take this to mean you do believe the passage in Deuteronomy is part of the moral law.

And I disagree with your position on this. I believe this passage is referencing a civil law intended for the nation of Israel before the age of Christ. As the article you posted yesterday references...

"Civil laws
These were directed at daily living for the Israelites. These laws regulated things such as marriage, divorce...

These civil laws were only a model of legal arrangements for any society but were only for the duration of the Old Testament, obsolete after Christ came.
"
 
I came around on gun control and I don't say "don't say gay"
You might be my favorite liberal poster on here. I like @davidallen but for other reasons and interest that we align with. You are a smart person and I have learned that interacting with you over the years. I don't hate those with different views from me only ask that they are your views and you have thought them out. You sir do that. You will never hear me call you uneducated. I also like @Been Jammin but I think in my absence he might have got on a few radars over here. Other then some political ideas I am sure we would get along great in real life. Toon is a ****ing idiot, straight up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoastGuardCowboy
Well since this is the best you can do, I will take this to mean you do believe the passage in Deuteronomy is part of the moral law.

And I disagree with your position on this. I believe this passage is referencing a civil law intended for the nation of Israel before the age of Christ. As the article you posted yesterday references...

"Civil laws
These were directed at daily living for the Israelites. These laws regulated things such as marriage, divorce...

These civil laws were only a model of legal arrangements for any society but were only for the duration of the Old Testament, obsolete after Christ came.
"
Agree partly.

Civil law in the grant of divorce. Moral on why she couldn't return, which is what I referred to in v. 4.

Certainly a very interesting yet difficult passage to wrestle with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
You are a smart person and I have learned that interacting with you over the years. I don't hate those with different views from me only ask that they are your views and you have thought them out. You sir do that. You will never hear me call you uneducated.
Sounds like you haven't heard how poorly I would do on an in class 60 minute M intelligence test, but thanks any way.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: davidallen
Sounds like you haven't heard how poorly I would do on an in class 60 minute M intelligence test, but thanks any way.
Didn't you once answer a test question correctly none of your pals could? Maybe you shouldn't judge yourself so poorly.

A reminder: iasooner1 didn't invite me here to declare anyone stupid. He invited me here to listen to the handful declare themselves so.
 
Moral on why she couldn't return, which is what I referred to in v. 4.
And I disagree. This too was a civil law intended for the nation of Israel. It become obsolete in the age of Christ.

How often have you heard a sermon from a Christian Pastor telling men they can't remarry their first wife because God condemns it in his moral law?
 
Sounds like you haven't heard how poorly I would do on an in class 60 minute M intelligence test, but thanks any way.
I have read your post over the years, and some have frustrated me but uneducated is not something I would call you.
 
@AC2020 . . .

So what I understand your claim to be (I'm wanting to make sure so as not to misrepresent your claim) is that any time the word used in Proverbs 28:9 and Lev. 18:22 that some English translations of the Bible translate as "abomination" means that verse/passage is automatically referencing the moral law.

Is this a correct statement of your claim?
 
The slow calls questions he can't answer silly, trick or stupid, something 07pilt never does. The bright sees questions he can't answer as a challenge. You can never answer the question 07pilt answered unless 07pilt would answer it for you.
 
The slow calls questions he can't answer silly, trick or stupid, something 07pilt never does. The bright sees questions he can't answer as a challenge. You can never answer the question 07pilt answered unless 07pilt would answer it for you.
I don't recall answering any questions but for sure I don't know math's simplest equation or the seven components of critical reasoning
 
And I disagree. This too was a civil law intended for the nation of Israel. It become obsolete in the age of Christ.

How often have you heard a sermon from a Christian Pastor telling men they can't remarry their first wife because God condemns it in his moral law?
Hardly any pastor wants to touch the subject of divorce these days. If they did, they'd hear crickets on Sunday mornings -- which is increasingly becoming the case anyway.
 
I also like @Been Jammin but I think in my absence he might have got on a few radars over here.
not sure what you mean about being on radars. I hardly ever check in on this board anymore. You are one of my favorite posters regardless of politics.
 
not sure what you mean about being on radars. I hardly ever check in on this board anymore. You are one of my favorite posters regardless of politics.
I'd like to say you are missed, but after you accused me of peddling covid19 misinformation, I changed my mind. Pound sand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
Hardly any pastor wants to touch the subject of divorce these days. If they did, they'd hear crickets on Sunday mornings -- which is increasingly becoming the case anyway.
I agree that certain pastors don't preach divorce but it isn't just because they'd hear crickets. It is also because they want to keep their jobs and paychecks. They know if they preached a conservative religious view on divorce (as they do so often on abortion and homosexuality, for example), they would face pushback and attacks from their members. They would get into hot water. It is much safer to for them to preach what their members want to hear. Many of their members don't want their thinking to be challenged.

The Apostle Paul spoke about this in II Timothy 4:3. Gathering teachers who will say what their itching ears want to hear.
 
Last edited:
It is absolutely wrong to advocate, suggest, and ruminate about assassinating Supreme Court Justices or acting to do so. Just as it was and is wrong to advocate, suggest, and ruminate about assassinating members of Congress and the Vice President or acting to do so.

Both should be strongly condemned by all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.
 
It is absolutely wrong to advocate, suggest, and ruminate about assassinating Supreme Court Justices or acting to do so. Just as it was and is wrong to advocate, suggest, and ruminate about assassinating members of Congress and the Vice President or acting to do so.

Both should be strongly condemned by all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.
Then let's see your strong condemnation instead of your usual prattle of whataboutism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
Then let's see your strong condemnation instead of your usual prattle of whataboutism.
I just strongly condemned it. Again, it is wrong to advocate, suggest, and ruminate about assassinating Supreme Court Justices or acting to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AC2020
I just strongly condemned it. Again, it is wrong to advocate, suggest, and ruminate about assassinating Supreme Court Justices or acting to do so.
Has that turd you've strongly condemned been banned from twitter? Asking for a friend...
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT