Apr 06, 2020


II. B. 6. God allows "the land itself" to spew out immoral, abominable nations (cf B.10)

Click here (new window) to display all references, or click each individual reference below.
(Note: Each link opens a new popup window)

Reference Relevant Comments
Gen 12:1-7 'the land which I will show you ... the Canaanite was then in the land.'
Gen 13:14-15 'the land... forever'
Exod 3:8 'a land flowing with milk and honey.'
Exod 20:12 conditions for long life in the land
Exod 23:22-33 'I will be an enemy to your enemies ...and completely destroy them...I will drive them out before you little by little,... no covenant with them!
Exod 33:1-6 ( 'I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite' - you are an obstinate people unfit for a Holy God! No ornaments in the land! )
Exod 34: 12-16 (No covenant with other nations lest they pollute the land with their immorality)
Lev 18:26-30 ...'so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.'
XLev 20:22-24 'so that the land...will not spew you out'
Lev 25:18-19 conditions for enjoying security in the land
Lev 26:1-6 conditions for peace and security in the land

Click here (new window) to display all references, or click each individual reference below.
(Note: Each link opens a new popup window)

Reference Relevant Comments
Deut 5:32-33 conditions for longevity in the land
Deut 9:4-6 (reason for which they will be given that land: the wickedness of the occupants)
Deut 11:8-9 conditions for possession of and longevity in the land
Deut 11:20-29 (land linked to moral behaviour - blessing vs. curse)
Deut 12:1-5 (land to be cleansed from immorality and idolatry)
Deut 18:9-15 'a prophet like me' ...(instead of occultism)
Deut 21:1-9 (land polluted by innocent blood)
Num 33:51-53, 55-56 (drive out, destroy and take possession lest you fall into a snare)
Jer 9:12 reasons why the land ris 'uined, laid waste like a desert,'
Jer 16: 15-18 the consequences of "polluting" the land: the dispersion, but ' I will restore them to their own land ' by means of 'fishers' and 'hunters'
Jer 23:10 'the land mourns because of the curse'
Ezek 36:16-20 defilement in His land exported to other nations
Ezek 39:11-16 the land must be cleansed from its moral impurity
Ezek 48:14 the land must not be sold, for it is holy!
Add Comment 
Sign as Author 
Enter code 517

luuyowooemy — 15 October 2012, 17:09

BzsTat <a href="http://zisftacxbosp.com/">zisftacxbosp</a>

nvefknmuf — 13 October 2012, 21:37

HQEWPI <a href="http://nlavfofhkxuk.com/">nlavfofhkxuk</a>

Guna — 13 October 2012, 08:05

the woman is right to say that she is currently not maeirrd though she has had 5 husbands in the past. The implication being that while she was maeirrd, now that she is divorced, she is unmaeirrd. First, as you well know, it does not explicitly say that she is divorced, nor does it say that some or all of her former husbands are still living. If they are all dead, then this is a mute point. Now, for the sake of teasing out my question, I'll assume it is a valid inference that at least some of her former husbands are living and that she has been divorced, that is why it she can be said to not currently be maeirrd. I suppose this could be a valid inference if she is presented as an unchaste woman in the passage. But all this is not the heart of my question.Could this not merely be phenomological language? Sure, in a earthly, human sense, once you are divorced you are not maeirrd. You do not have the joint legal entailments, etc. If someone has been civilly divorced (even ecclesiastically if you could find a situation like that), then you could truthly file your tax returns as single etc. In this sense, I agree that this woman in Jn 4 was not maeirrd, and that divorce does terminate a marriage. Because of this, if the partners of the divorce wanted to get back together, it would require a marriage again (I would encourage the spouse following 1 Cor. 7:11 to be re-maeirrd' in application of this reconciliation').The reason this concerns me, is because, as I see it, the emphasis on the Bible's teaching focuses on remarriage. Divorce is not permitted' per se, but it does recognize the reality of divorce because of hardness of heart, and it seeks to regulate this. The rubber meets the road for me in the issue of remarriage. Most who follow the Erasmian interpretation, more or less assume that if the Bible teaches grounds for divorce, then it likewise assumes the permission to remarry. This is built off of 2 planks, (1) the common legal understanding of the 1st C Jews, and (2) divorce is covenant dissolution.I think if we grant that divorce does terminate a marriage, in that it dissolves the covenant between these two partners before God, then we have undercut the logic behind the prohibition to remarriage. The reason that persons can't remarry, even if they are divorced, is because in God's eyes they are still maeirrd, the covenant before God has not been dissolved. That is why remarriage is described as committing adultery. I'm hard pressed to understand how remarriage would be considered adultery in any other case.I would appreciate your response in light of these remarks. I have some other questions/comments about your position on divorce and remarriage, but I will save them until you can reply to this, seeing that this comment is already getting pretty lengthy.Richard Lucas