RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Life] >> Marriage



Message

SusieQue -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/7/2005 9:53:58 AM)

I believe that sometimes divorce is sin, but contrary to what many christians 'act' like... it is not the unpardonable sin. If you do not have biblical grounds for divorce, I believe it is sinful. But God has grace, and healing, and a way out when we seek to let him change us. And he can redeem our lives with second chances at even love in my opinion. :) And yes, if you have gone through repentance and restoration with the Lord, you are by all mean eligible for ministry. The gifts and callings of God are without repentance. :)



DaveW -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/7/2005 11:15:40 AM)

While it is true that Paul was not married at the time he wrote his letters, to have had a seat in the Sanhedrin and to be a Pharasee he had to have been married. Either she died early and he stayed single, or she left him when he became a "Jesus freak."



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/7/2005 11:26:05 AM)

Interesting thoughts Dave. I know Paul was a Pharisee, but I never thought of him in the Sanhedrin. Also, I have never heard anyone assert that Paul was ever married. Since this is new to me, what are the scriptures supporting this?



qtpuh2tme -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/7/2005 12:15:52 PM)

Kevin . . . Paul's being married @ one time isn't so much an 'issue' of supportable Bible text, but rather, as Dave pointed out, a matter of cultural context. To have been who he was, in the high-up position he had, he most assuredly was married at one time. It simply wouldn't have been cuturally, nor positionally acceptable to be otherwise.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/7/2005 1:23:16 PM)

I understand the cultural relevance. However, I don't even know of direct scriptural support that Paul was even part of the Sanhedrin. Paul never says he was. No one else in the scriptures says he was.

It seems to be the case that in order to be part of the Sanhedrin, i.e. the full assembly of the elders of Israel, one would have to be married. There is no direct support of Paul being married. There is much direct scriptural support that he was not married at the time he was a believer. He certainly seemed to be on the path to becoming an elder of the Sanhedrin. He said in Galatians 1:14 "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers". But we know this advancement was abruptly ended when he met Christ on the road to Damascus. And we also know he was a young man at the time.

It is possible that Paul was married. But there is no scriptural evidence to support he was married or that he was a member of the Sanhedrin.

Disagree?



DaveW -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/7/2005 2:34:03 PM)

He was a disciple of Gameliel, President (equivalent) of the Pharasaic side of the Sanhedrin and grandson of Hillel. A Sanhedrin member would typically have his disciples seated behind him in the chambers. Training for the day they would take his seat. Since Paul was advanced, he would have been right behind his master.

In Judiasm it was considered a sin to not be married as the first command was to be fruitful and multiply. The exceptions to this were if a person was a potential mazmer (illegetimate) or disfigured from birth in some way.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/7/2005 2:57:45 PM)

Then by inference you now seat Paul in the assembly of the Sanhedrin, but you do fall short of including him in it. Is this correct?

Second, I am not aware that a Jewish man was considered in sin by not marrying (exceptions noted). Currently in Judaism, especially Orthodox and conservative Jewish circles, there is a "singles" crisis as their standards for marriage are so restrictive, people are simply not getting married. No damnation for singleness. Support and efforts to help them are there. But nothing about it being sinful.

I would think that if any Jewish sect were to hold to the ancient principles more closely than others, it would be the orthdox Jews. I know that they still separate genders in the tabernacle among other customs.

Where is this "sin for single" concept found?

I only ask because I do not know.



Keabird -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/7/2005 4:32:10 PM)

I have heard the conjecture about Paul being married, but have never seen any proof. In Acts 7:58, when Stephen was stoned, and Saul/Paul was guarding the coats, it describes Paul as a young man. If this is the case, and he became saved not long after that, it is well possible that he had not yet married. In Acts 22:3, Paul refers to himself as being trained in the law, under Gamaliel. If I recall correctly, he referred to himself elsewhere as being as zealous as any Pharisee. If he was young, there is no reason to suppose he must have already been married, and Scripture does not support evidence that he was, although there are those who suggest that the thorn in his side may have been a wife! LOL! Personally, I don't go along with that theory. [;)]



DaveW -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/8/2005 7:08:04 AM)

Arranged marriages were the mode of the day in the first century, usually consumated around 14 or 15.

Orthodox and esp. the ultraorthodox (chassidic) Jews still marry in their teens. While many Reform and Conservative Jews are single much later in life, there is still a sense that they are not supporting the community. If you want the source of the idea of marrying at this age you should read the Talmud, Tractate Ketuvim. This tractate covers all aspects of marriage.
quote:

Paul refers to himself as being trained in the law, under Gamaliel. If I recall correctly, he referred to himself elsewhere as being as zealous as any Pharisee. If he was young, there is no reason to suppose he must have already been married,

You are looking at this thru western 20th century eyes. Their social structure was so different that it seems foreign to us, but almost everyone was betrothed somewhere around 5 years old. Marriages were considered binding if consumated at the age of 9. While we may consider that abhorant, it was standard fare for them. The only reasons Paul would not have been married as a young man were either he was suspected of being illegetimate (the reason Jesus was not married) or that he had some kind of birth defect. In either case, Gameliel would not have taken him on as a student.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/8/2005 7:32:09 AM)

That is still conjecture. Without corroborating evidence from scripture, and without any other historical account, even post-mortem, that is not enough to confirm Paul was married. And Paul's own words never indicate that he was married. Instead, he goes on at length about being not married.

Personally it does not matter if he was married or not. Clearly he was an elder of the early church. Clearly he was NOT married at that time. And clearly Paul wrote the requirements for elder. He would have a hard time writing that an elder MUST be married, when he himself was not. This was never addressed at all, therefore, it could have not been interpreted that way.

Does anyone have any real evidence that Paul was married? Even slight references from scripture?

Just another thought, how old is the assertion that Paul was married? Where did this originate? Cite references.



qtpuh2tme -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/8/2005 9:16:42 PM)

I don't know
quote:

how old is the assertion that Paul was married?
is, but personally, I've been on the receving end of this teaching in my church attendances for over 40 years. In 'my world' it's been accepted fact, muchly based upon the accepted Jewish cultural and positional info Dave related to you.

There's all kinds of things in the Bible that are "known" based upon cultural context that aren't specifically spelled out.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/8/2005 9:54:18 PM)

Again, something is not "known" simply because it is presumed. Something is "known" when there is proof of it happening. In my circles, all my life, it has been "known" that Paul was single. This goes with my parents as well. So from their perspective, my mother says that from the 1940's on, everyone in our neck of the woods "knew" Paul was single from Paul's statements. They feel pretty sure that her parents held the same view.

Once more. It is conjecture to assume that every Jewish man who studied the Law was married. And that is what you would have to presume to accept the odds that Paul was married.

So then, if I were to accept the premise that Paul was married. Why is there absolutely no mention of it? Why is there no mention of a wife, a death of a wife, a divorce of a wife, a separation from a wife or any other reference to him having been married?

I am sorry, but I cannot accept an argument from silence in the scriptures. So then, I will be looking for what the early church fathers thought on this and to find the source of this concept, because I have never in my life heard this presented before.



qtpuh2tme -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/8/2005 10:22:13 PM)

quote:

I am sorry, but I cannot accept an argument from silence in the scriptures.


Gee, I guess I'm really surprised by this statement from you. Hmmh. ~:/ There are SOooo many things Biblically that are presumed based upon cultural (as well as other) contexts.

Anyway, it isn't really something about which I, personally, believe is "argument" worthy. [:)]



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/8/2005 10:37:17 PM)

Well, I would not assert that. Actually, where cultural context is used, is to reinforce or refute ideas, not necessarily bring forth or elict ideas that are not in some way, backed up by scripture. I guess, before I could really comment, I would have to see some examples of (mainstream) Christian beliefs that are "known" by most Christians yet are ONLY known from cultural context with no biblical references or support.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/8/2005 11:09:30 PM)

Ok, after some searching I found some requirements for membership in the Sanhedrin.


  • Must be expert in all areas of the Torah
  • Must be of good appearance and free of bodily defect
  • Must be of unbroken Jewish line
  • Must be Levite or Kohen-priest
  • Must not be childless
  • Must not be sexually maimed
  • Must be a minimum age of 18
  • Must not be "too old" as to be severe
  • Preferred age is at least 40 years old
  • The leader must be at least 50 years old
  • Must be ordained as a Rabbi

This is interesting stuff. The age thing specifically. Paul certainly was exceptional, so he could have been a young member, but definitely would have to be 18 years old or over to be a member. I will keep researching.



DaveW -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/9/2005 6:39:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuronstatic

So then, I will be looking for what the early church fathers thought on this and to find the source of this concept, because I have never in my life heard this presented before.

I would suggest that the early church fathers would be the LAST place to look. There was a severe disconnect for whatever reason between 1st century Judiasm, Jewish culture and the gentile church leaders in the 2nd century. It almost reads like some of them intentionally ignored or suppressed the Hebrew culture that gave rise to the scriptures. The celebate status of Paul has been heavily promoted by the RCC.

The church I attended as a child said Paul was single always, but when I went to college they insisted Paul had to have been married. If you really want to know, read the Mishnah, read the Talmuds. Find out what being a Pharasee was all about. The rabbis of the Mishnah were the decendants of the Pharasees. Paul was a "pharasee of Pharasees" and by finding out what that meant you will have your answer.



DaveW -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/9/2005 6:44:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuronstatic

Ok, after some searching I found some requirements for membership in the Sanhedrin.

Please remember that the Sanhedren was a bi-cameral assembly, with the Saducees (party of the High Priest) and the Pharasees having equal numbers. Gameliel I was the "president" of the Pharasaic side. He was the grandson of Hillel. They were not Levites or priests. That requirement was for the other side.

Keep looking.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/9/2005 8:54:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuronstatic

So then, I will be looking for what the early church fathers thought on this and to find the source of this concept, because I have never in my life heard this presented before.

I would suggest that the early church fathers would be the LAST place to look. There was a severe disconnect for whatever reason between 1st century Judiasm, Jewish culture and the gentile church leaders in the 2nd century. It almost reads like some of them intentionally ignored or suppressed the Hebrew culture that gave rise to the scriptures. The celebate status of Paul has been heavily promoted by the RCC.

The church I attended as a child said Paul was single always, but when I went to college they insisted Paul had to have been married. If you really want to know, read the Mishnah, read the Talmuds. Find out what being a Pharasee was all about. The rabbis of the Mishnah were the decendants of the Pharasees. Paul was a "pharasee of Pharasees" and by finding out what that meant you will have your answer.

The Mishnah and the Talmuds were the written form of the oral history. Their writing was started after the time of Christ and Paul. While I will not contend with their content accuracy, the more I read of their inception and the ensuing debate that followed was not unlike that which the translator's of the OT and NT had to deal with.

Because of this, while it is beneficial to consult the Mishnah and the Talmuds, they are not the Word of God. They are the record form of the Oral history of the Jewish leadership, written by men, and thus carry the same agenda and baselines as the Jewish leadership in the day of Christ.

So then they tell us about Jewish oral law and the traditions of Jewish life, they are not to be held above or even equal to the Scriptures. Do you concur or debate this point?

(Edited to be more precise in my wording)



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/9/2005 8:56:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuronstatic

Ok, after some searching I found some requirements for membership in the Sanhedrin.

Please remember that the Sanhedren was a bi-cameral assembly, with the Saducees (party of the High Priest) and the Pharasees having equal numbers. Gameliel I was the "president" of the Pharasaic side. He was the grandson of Hillel. They were not Levites or priests. That requirement was for the other side.

Keep looking.

I am not sure that I completely agree with that in its entireity. Pharisee and Saducee was a persuasion of thought for a Jew that was in effect, separate "sects" of Judiasm, not lines of ancestry. Inclusion in the Sanhedrin was quite particularly required to be of Levite or Kohen-priest descent regardless of their persuasion.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

(Edited to be more precise in my wording)



DaveW -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/9/2005 11:40:07 AM)

According to Jewishencyclopedia.com Hillel and Gameliel his grandson were of the Davidic line, Judah and not of Levi. This was of ancient tradition. Not hard source.

However, since Hillel and Gameliel were both president of the Sanhedrin, and if Sanhedrin membership required Levitical decent, this would have never held any credance.



momfree -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/9/2005 12:57:16 PM)

YAWN.....all this talk about history, theology and so forth is getting boring and too civil and tmi and confusing (oh and giving me a headache)....can't we just go back to fighting??? Gosh you guys are no fun anymore [sm=sidesmile.gif]



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/10/2005 10:17:38 AM)

Interesting point. It makes one wonder about the Talmuds.

At any rate, given that Paul was NOT married, and he WAS an elder, I don't think the requirements is for having a current wife to be an elder.



Keabird -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/10/2005 6:53:48 PM)

quote:

and he WAS an elder, I don't think the requirements is for having a current wife to be an elder.


I have never interpreted the passages about requirements of deacons and elders having one wife to mean that ONLY married men can be deacons or elders. But if they ARE married, that they are to have only one current wife.

I was reading 1 Corinthians 11 last night, the chapter about women wearing headcoverings as a sign of authority, etc. As I reading it, I was struck at how Paul obviously writes in the context of what was considered acceptable and usual at the time, and he even says so. Even Paul recognized that tradition and culture play a part in what is considered acceptable in churches. I wonder if Paul lived today, whether he would be as concerned about headcoverings as he was then. After all, he himself said that when with the Greeks, he lived as a Greek, and when with the Jews he lived like a Jew. I would think that if lived in today's Western world he would take into account how a Western person is used to living - and perhaps fall back on the command given by the new Christians to the new Christian Gentiles - to abstain from sexual immorality and to abstain from eating blood. Just a thought. I also wonder if he would be legalistic about divorced people not being given positions of ministry within the church - somehow, I tend to think that if he knew the person to be walking with the Lord, I doubt if he would make such a fuss. We really need him to come down here and let us know what he thinks about today's world ... [;)]



DaveW -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/11/2005 11:05:46 AM)

quote:

At any rate, given that Paul was NOT married, and he WAS an elder,

Neuron - your post got me curious. Where is it recorded that Paul was an elder of a local church?

Act 13:1 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.


Now Paul (saul here) was certainly a teacher, but it does not say he was an elder or deacon which had the "husband of one wife" requirement. He became an apostle just after this but that office does not have a biblically mandated list of prerequisites.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/11/2005 7:53:23 PM)

I guess Dave, in that the Sanhedrin was the assembly of the elders of Israel, Paul was one of the "elders" of the faith along with the disciples and other early church planters and their equivalent of "circuit riders". While I do not think he was an elder of a single local church, to dismiss his being an elder of the faith would be a weak argument.

So then, if you are thinking that the instruction for elder/deacon requirements is limited to only local churches, where is the supporting text for that? I see it as a general instruction. And like we both know, looking at it from the perspective of that era, the whole "pastor/elder/deacon system" was still in its infancy and not as well defined as it is now. Though it would no doubt have been based on what they knew, starting as a sect of Judaism, it would follow those principles.

If that is the case, then while there was a local rabbi for the churches, still Paul and others constituted elders. Of course, either side of this debate is still speculation at best. It can be based on various sources. But there is no definitive scripture to lay it out. Because of this, I tend to think that Paul was an elder by his annointing by Jesus (on the road to Damascus). Paul knew well what an elder was. So when he wrote the instruction, he knew what he was saying.

And now, my brain is so filled with trying to pack, move, get married, and deal with "ex" issues, that all of this has just completely taxed the last few operating neurons in my brain tonight.[8D]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI