“The chief danger that confronts the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, heaven without hell.” ― William Booth
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 5:44 pm
I'm 4 minutes and 14 seconds into the video and I think he's subtly reading something into the verse: there's no doubt that the verse says we can divorce over sexual immorality, but why is he saying we can remarry over sexual immorality? I was under the impression, from Romans 7, that we can only remarry to a different person if the ex-spouse dies. Divorce over sexual immorality, sure, but remarriage because of sexual immorality? only if the cheater (adulteress/adulterer) gets put to death (ergo, even here, death is still the only thing that truly separates).
From what I am seeing, reconciliation / fixing the separation (and thus going back into the relationship we divorced from) is the only obedient way a divorced person can remarry while their ex-spouse still lives (a.k.a. by re-marrying their still-living, ex-spouse [if the ex-spouse hasn't disobediently, thus adulterously, already joined themselves to another that is], ergo by re-marrying the same person, not a different person).
However, if the ex-spouse is no longer living, then you can't reconcile that relationship, thus why you can / are allowed to re-marry a different person—but the intention should not be, "divorcing over sexual immorality to remarry a different person" when reconciliation with the ex-spouse is still possible and they're still alive.
And when remarriage to the ex-spouse isn't possible because they went and joined themselves to another during the separation, I don't see obedient remarriage possible at all for the one who was cheated on either—unless their ex-spouse dies in this case too. Til death do us part. Death being the only thing that truly parts two people who have united to become one flesh.
Relevant verses:
Matthew 5:32 (NIV)
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Romans 7:1-3 (NIV)
7 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (NIV)
24 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Leviticus 20:10 (NIV)
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17:6 (NIV)
6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
All I see Matthew 5:32 saying is that if we intiate divorce when sexual immorality has not occurred, then we make the person we separate from a victim of adultery if someone marries them. But if they committed sexual immorality already, we're not making them a victim of adultery (sexual immorality) because they already committed adultery/sexual immorality against us in the first place; ergo, we do not make them a victim of adultery—not that it's excusing us to remarry a different person in either case. question because they're still alive on earth.
All the more when you consider that adulterers and adulteresses would get put to death according to our Heavenly Father's Law (cheaters / the participants in the act of adultery get put to death when His Law is the law of the land and there are two to three truthful witnesses—not participants, but witnesses—who can condemn it lawfully). So, not surprisingly, according to our God's Law, why after sexual immorality has been committed the surviving, innocent party can get remarried: death is what frees people up to remarry a different person while avoiding the most defilement possible, to their (and someone else's) body, emotions, and conscience, and to the land. But if no one is getting put to death, but the guilty party is still living, then re-marrying (after cheating has happened) is not something being allowed—the cheating spouse is still alive, you could still be financially-yoked to that person because of kids, emotionally-yoked, and an area of insecurity to the new / different person you marry because they know your ex is still alive. Death is the only thing that cleanly separates and eases consciences.
On a related note: I was going to say, "this is why David—sinfully/unlawfully—killed Bathsheba's husband (Uriah) to get married with Bathsheba 'legitimately', since death separates—even though David's relations with her prior to that were illegitimate / unlawful and his killing of Uriah was illegitimate / unlawful too". But, actually, no, this sin of David's has nothing to do with trying to obey God's definition of legitimate marriage / remarriage. David's disobedience to God's Law (murdering / unlawfully killing) to obey God's Law (concerning legitimate marriage/re-marriage)—which is an oxymoron in and of itself and sinful to do; you don't sin in order to obey, it's still sin even if you say it's to honor God—is not what's going on here. No, David just wanted to cover up his adultery, make it seem like he was legitimately married to Bathsheba before she got knocked up. And David only resorted to this when he couldn't get Uriah to have sexual relations with Bathsheba (who was Uriah's wife), and eliminate all reason to suspect David as the father of Bathsheba's baby, and thus not have David exposed for his adulterous affair. If she gets pregnant when Uriah is off at war, then that would expose that she had sexual relations with someone else, which could expose David. But if Uriah had sex with her around the same time, no one would suspect David.
However, achieving "being married to someone, legitimately / lawfully, according to God's Law", was not David's true desire, because had it been, then he would not have forcefully taken Michal back as his wife upon being informed that Saul had already "remarried" her to Paltiel (1 Samuel 18:27-29, 25:44; 2 Samuel 3:13-15). God's Law prohibits the taking back of a spouse after she has re-married another (as quoted above in Deut 24:1-4). So, David was just trying to cover up his sin (adultery), not be obedient to YHWH's Law (concerning marriage and remarriage). He was just committing sin (unlawful killing) to cover up his other sins (adultery).
All of that to say, I can't use David's actions as an example of, "only death separates" because that wasn't his motive for killing Uriah (he killed Uriah for selfish reasons to hide his own act of adultery). But knowing that adulterers and adulteresses get put to death (when two to three witnesses—not fellow participants, but witnesses—prosecute it to death), and that Romans 7 outright says only death separates, I remain unconvinced that sexual immorality is grounds for remarriage when no one is put to death. Though you can divorce because of sexual immorality, you can't remarry over sexual immorality unless your spouse / ex-spouse dies. Only death truly separates.
---
That was the more pressing matter. But there was also an idolatrous halo image used in the video so far. That sun-disk imagery should not be used anywhere near the Bible and Christ. It's pagan, sun-worshipping symbolism. The closest thing to a halo in the Bible would be a rainbow encircling the throne or green (or gem-like?) arch around God's throne, and a rainbow on an angel's head in the book of Revelation, but not the yellow halo. That is sun-god imagery.
Ezekiel 1:28 (NIV)
28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.
This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.
Revelation 4:3 (NIV)
3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald encircled the throne.
Revelation 10:1 (NIV)
10 Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars.
That said, I'll continue listening.
cristobela Vice Captain
Offline
cristobela Vice Captain
Offline
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 7:40 pm
Further clarification: in John 8, the Pharisees were probably the male counterpart (the adulterers) of the adulteress' act of adultery—and that is why they didn't "apparently" bring the adulterer; one of them (or all of them) are him. Assuming they aren't trying to condemn her based on mere hearsay / rumor (ergo, were not truthful witnesses to the act of the adultery in this case either, not because they are participiants of her sin, but by not having been involved at all, neither as witnesses). Both—whether being false witnesses or being adulterers/fellow participants along with her—are grounds for their stoning to death too according to God's Law.
Leviticus 20:10 (NIV)
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
Deuteronomy 19:18-19 (NIV)
18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you.
And Jesus didn't stone her because, aside from His first coming being about reconciling people to the Father, the Law of God prohibits condemning to death on the testimony of only one witness alone. That is unjust / sinful / unlawful.
Deuteronomy 17:6 (NIV)
6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
---
Subtle deviance:
@29:00 no, Jesus did not come to say, "don't kill people for their sins", but that we're not to kill them UNLAWFULLY for their sins—which is what the Pharisees were doing (whether unlawfully trying to prosecute an adulteress without bringing the adultererer for prosecution too, and without the lawful amount witnesses and lawful quality of witnesses OR unlawfully excusing people from being stoned to death despite having cursed their parents—Jesus said, in such a case, to kill them, Pharisees unlawfully said, "don't").
Matthew 15:1-9 (NIV)
15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 15:4 Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16 b. Matthew 15:4 Exodus 21:17; Lev. 20:9 c. Matthew 15:9 Isaiah 29:13
Leviticus 20:9 (NIV)
9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
The Pharisees weren't basing themselves on God's Law / the Commands of our Heavenly Father, but on their own reasonings.
Unlike the Pharisees, Jesus was siding with the Law of our Heavenly Father in both cases—by withholding stoning to death in the adulteress' case and commanding stoning to death in the case of those who cursed parents, both in accord with YHWH's Law. When YHWH's Law is the Law of the land, there is nothing morally wrong or unmerciful about obeying the Law of God to condemn capital sins to death. Obedience to it is the act of mercy. The Law of God prevents unjust punishments of sin, and punishes the heartless/careless from abusing others further with their sins. (edit: not to mention, the severity of God's Law discourages the sin in the first place)
---
That said, he was biblically-sound overall: that we should, according to Scripture, help our brothers and sisters in Christ repent from their sins; that we should point out sin in others once we don't commit that sin anymore; that we should turn from our sins, not continue in them; and that Hovind should not be remarrying.
I love his zeal for holiness heart He's just off on a few things.
I like Hovind's dedication to creationism, but he's misinterpreting the Commands of Scripture to suit his carnal desires. He's acting like the lawless Pharisees.
Reply
