11,141
edits
Question 24 (ABM) - Grounds for Divorce according to William Branham: Difference between revisions
Question 24 (ABM) - Grounds for Divorce according to William Branham (view source)
Revision as of 22:48, 13 January 2019
, 5 years ago→Response from ABM
| Line 329: | Line 329: | ||
ABM | ABM | ||
=Follow up from BTS= | |||
Dear ABM, | |||
I agree that it does not appear that William Branham was trying to bring some new standard on marriage and divorce. I think that he was trying to bring his view of scripture. But as I stated in my original email, I think his understanding and interpretation of scripture is blatantly and obviously wrong. | |||
You state, “He was just promoting what he believed was a traditional Christian view of divorce.” I do not agree with this statement. I do think he set a separate standard between men and women. This is not the traditional position of the church. | |||
I think your attempt to reconcile William Branham's teaching to scripture is a result of cognitive dissonance. You cannot accept that William Branham could be significantly wrong in his teaching and, therefore, you must reconcile his teachings with scripture, even if that is not possible from what he clearly said. Your belief that he is a prophet will not allow you to have any substantial disagreement with him. | |||
You state that "It is not clear to outsiders that Bro. Branham was speaking specifically of cases of an unbelieving spouse when he spoke of the cases where the wife dishonored her husband". I believe you must make this distinction even if it is not the case. More on that later. | |||
You stated, “We agree that there is equality between man and woman in these matters.” | |||
This is what the New Testament teaches, so we are in agreement. But there are other issues where we are clearly in disagreement. | |||
You stated, “We believe Bro. Branham did think it was acceptable to divorce a woman years after their marriage if he discovered she had not been a virgin at marriage. However, this is not scriptural, and we believe he had a mistaken understanding.” | |||
This is a significant statement. But I believe he was mistaken in a more significant way. | |||
You later state, “If a wife was found to not be a virgin on her wedding night, she could be put away, but only if it was done immediately. (Duet 22, which yes is the law. But I believe it establishes the principle. We would not stone the woman, but we would permit the divorce.)” | |||
I will go into the issue of William Branham’s view of the law and its application in the New Testament church in a later question. However, it is clear as we stated in our original question that Jesus clearly changed Mosaic law in his teaching on divorce. Given that, how can you justify bringing the law into the New Testament? Jesus did not carry the principle of Jewish law on divorce into the new covenant, so why would a principle of that law apply here except that you must agree with William Branham? | |||
You state, “We deem any marital sin prior to conversion to be forgiven through baptism and repentance. We do not consider any pre-conversion reason as valid reason to divorce or to prevent remarriage.“ I agree with this statement but would apply it to all sexual immorality. But you make an exception for this on the marriage night? I don’t understand how you can make such an exception from the New Testament. | |||
You state, “In the case where Bro. Branham says "he can put her away, but she cannot put him away", we also accept this teaching. But we interpret it differently that you are. We believe in the specific cases he gave, that the party guilty of adultery has no right force the divorce. It is the innocent party who has the right to chose a divorce. The prerogative of divorce or reconciliation lays completely with the innocent party. Bro. Branham merely stated if from the perspective of the man being the innocent party - however the reverse could also be true. So again, we believe this is equal for both genders, and the emphasis is not on the gender but on the guilty party”. | |||
This disagrees with the plain meaning of William Branham’s statements: | |||
230 Now you notice in First Corinthians 7:10, notice, Paul commands the wife that is, that divorces her husband, to remain single or be reconciled, not to remarry. She must remain single, or to be reconciled back to her husband. She cannot remarry. She must remain single, but, notice, '''he never said about the man.''' See, you can’t make the Word lie. “From the beginning,” '''the sex law by polygamy'''. Now, the Word of God runs true with nature of God, runs in to continuity. | |||
238 Now look, in the final analysis, look, there is one Jesus Christ (is that right?), one Man, God, Immanuel. Do you believe that? [Congregation says, “Amen.”—Ed.] But the members of His Wife are many, see, thousands times thousands of thousands (is that right?), His Wife, the Bride, the Church. You understand now? [“Amen.”]. (65-0221M - Marriage And Divorce) | |||
135 “Woman was made for man, and not man for woman.” That’s the reason, under the old laws, that polygamy was legal. (65-0429E - The Choosing Of A Bride) | |||
WMB obviously held men to a different standard for divorce than women. He specifically states, “he never said about the man.” '''Why would he say that if he was not making a distinction between men and women?''' I understand that this is not scriptural. That is my whole point. I also think the reason virtually everyone in the message would disagree with you is that they actually understand what William Branham taught on the issue. | |||
You state, “a wife who dishonors her husband by cutting her hair inappropriately, he may divorce her if she is an unbeliever (if she is a believer, it is not grounds for divorce).” | |||
You go on to state, “If an unbelieving wife dresses in a way her husband does not like that is not grounds for divorce. I do not think this question actually reflects what Bro. Branham taught. I believe he presented it in a manner in which she dishonored her husband. But if she dresses in a (sic) inappropriate way that dishonors her husband, yes that is grounds for divorce if she is an unbeliever (if she is a believer, it is not grounds for divorce).“ | |||
But this is not what Paul plainly taught in 1 Cor 7:12-13: | |||
:''To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and '''she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.''' And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. | |||
This does not say that if the unbelieving wife cuts her hair but still wants to live with her husband that the believing husband has the right to divorce her. It also does not say that if the unbelieving wife dresses in a manner that the believing husband does not like but she still wants to live with her husband that he has the right to divorce her. To argue this is twisting the passage to mean something it clearly does not state. This also holds true equally to the woman. The issue is the desire to remain married, not whether the unbelieving wife has "dishonoured" her husband in a way that she does not even understand or in a way that may be normal cultural behaviour for a married woman. | |||
There is nothing in the New Testament to support your statement or William Branham's statements. This is contrary to the preaching of Christ and to the apostle Paul. | |||
You state, “I would say that all three of these scenarios are very petty reasons to divorce and we would counsel the parties to not divorce for these reasons.” | |||
We believe that the teachings of Jesus and that of the apostle Paul are clear. The three reasons that William Branham gave were not scriptural and cannot be supported from any New Testament teaching. In fact, they are contrary to the plain meaning of the New Testament. | |||
Shalom, | |||
BTS | |||
{{Bottom of Page}} | {{Bottom of Page}} | ||