Marriage, Divorce, and ReMarriage.. Toward a Biblical Perspective

Hey thanks for that link there 'philologos'. I accidently started a new thread titled "Thee Old & New Life" in response to this whole debate.Sounds good.. heres the new thread continuation:Thee Old & New Life ;-)

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/

Heres a good link that shows how binding betrothal was/is.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B&search=betrothal

In Deut 22 we see the betrothed wife being put to death for willful sexual sin just the same as the consummated wife.
Both were fully bound in marriage, the betrothal 'custom' didnt nullify that fact.

nobody wrote:
I read some info on Jewish weddings once that was very interesting. It sheds some light on parallels to the church. Too bad that I have long forgotten the source!

The man and woman would become betrothed which already implied an exclusive relationship where adultery was possible. Then the man would build them a place to live and he couldn't go get his woman until his father declared his preparations adequate. Then he went upon that declaration, regardless of the time of day, to get her. She had to be ready and waiting at all times for months until he came and took her away. The wedding was not considered official, or whatever you want to call it, until the father led them back to their home after the party and they consummated it.

We await the father's command for our groom to come get us and take us to the prepared home.

I think it is obvious that sodomites cannot become married to each other in God's view. They are just practicing unnatural disgusting sin. No more than a man can become married to a sheep (might be next in the legislature) just because he practices that perversion.

All marriages are covenants that God has joined together for life. The scriptures are clear on this throughout.

for a refutation to Sealedeternals doctrinal errors, please see this page...

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/se-deut22-24.html

I see youre still pushing the fabrication that God is so absent minded that He had to amend Deut 22 with Deut 24 approx 3.5 days later.
That should have been your first clue that your doctrine was/is errant, SE.

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

It is clear from scripture that even a marriage with someone who is not God's child, is still joined by Him and cannot be separated.

If the unbeliever deserts, the the believer is as free as any other slave that has bet freed from his master.

For refutations to doctrinal error concerning Gods holy union of marriage....
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/index.html

Its nice to see you here, Sealedeternal, please, lets have a conversation so that we can refute your doctrine for a whole new group of folks here as well :-)

God joins us together, and no man has the authority to separate that which he has joined.

are you sure you even understand what youre studying?

The fact is Jesus is dealing with FRIVOLOUS divorce in Matt 19....and all throughout the NT....just as the Jews had been permitted by MOSES (a MAN) to do, as our Lord shows.

this permission for frivolous divorce (for EVERY cause) is laid out in writing in Deut 24:1-4, altho divorce had been permitted BEFORE this time (see Leviticus 21, the requirements for priests and high priests) but then was REGULATED with Deut 24:1-4 by placing requirements/restrictions on the man putting his wife away.

Jesus clearly is NOt doing away with what God has shown as a breech of covenant in the Law (sexual sin) as Jesus himself gives an exception concerning this divorce.

And we know your doctrine is errant when we see this huge contradiction you present when you say that Jesus is doing away with divorce for sexual sin when speaking to the pharisees in Matt 19, then He turns right around and says 'except for harlotry'.

I think Im going to add a page to my site for this HUGE contradiction of yours that you seem to be unable to see.
This will help folks who read your posts see that youre not adding up the facts correctly....especially when one of your own doctrine (alaska from crosswalk) has even pointed out your inconsistancies.

READERs see this page here
http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_690665/mpage_48/tm.htm
Even SEs own have tried to correct his blantant error, but he persists in it anyway.

Dear Sealed,

There is a lot more to marriage than you mention, just as there is a lot more to divorce than you don't mention.

Not quoting Matthew's gospel, the gospel which paid particular attention to the Jewish perspective, was a mistake.

EDIT: Apologies. I see you were... selective.... :-(

Matthew 19 continues
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (KJV)

EDIT end.

If you are seeking to convince other Bible students you have looked at every relevant scripture, and understood them, then you [i]have[/i] to find a place for the exception and its context given by our Lord, in [i]your[/i] dissertation.

This becomes even more vital, when faced with the obvious acceptance Jesus gives to a woman who had five marriages in her past. (John 4)

Good catch Dorcas.
SE, like lastblast, is very selective in what he tries to present, rejecting Gods WHOLE council on this matter.

Im glad he has shown up here and prayerfully is willing to keep posting for all to see.

Those interested please see my page here for dialogue with SE.
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/se-deut22-24.html

...

What SE does is to say that Deut 22 was amended by Deut 24:1-4 and that the woman found NOT a virgin is not to be put to death, but to be divorced from that point on.

One immediate problem that causes is that in Matt 19 Jesus would now be saying NO divorce for this 'fornication' or what they call PREmarital sex (betrothal sex by some).

The ridiculous error SE seems to miss is that after its all said and done, Jesus turns right around and gives EXCEPTION for this very fornication He supposedly just ended divorce concerning, thereby contradicting EVERYTHING He has supposedly just said.

preposterous.

Not to mention that Deut was given over approx 40 days...meaning that Deut 22 was given approx 3.5 days before Deut 24.

this would mean our Great wonderul, all-knowing God gave LAW concerning this woman not found a virgin, then being so absent minded AMENDED this law less than a month later.

Not only are these two BLATANT errors present, but also this means that the HUSBAND is the only person not able to have this wife put to death.

Deut 22:23-24 would STILL be effective meaning that ANYONE else who busted this wife for fornication could have her put to death :-?

SE is simply unwilling to try to harmonize ALL scripture in this matter.
It is my belief that he has been shown errant and sees the contradiction, but pride keeps him from re-evaluating what he believes.
We know all good bible students are always willing to accomodate new information and make every attempt to harmonize the WHOLE word of God.....well, theyre supposed to anyway

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/sealedeternalsbasicerror.html

Hi FOC,

Good catch Dorcas.

its exactly what you are saying.

Sorry SE, but Jesus lays out His rules, THEN gives His exception....thereby refuting your entire doctrinal stance.

NOWwhere does He ever state that it ONLY applies to Jewish betrothal....NO scripture EVER makes that claim....only you and your kind do.

\t \t
\tFornication (porneia g4202) cannot mean illicit sexual activity only 'during Jewish betrothal" as some try to state.

The word porneia (rendered 'fornication) is directed SPECIFICALLY to GENTILE converts in Acts 15 to tell them to abstain from 'fornication' (porneia G4202).

===========================================================================
"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Act 15:19-20)

fornication
G4202
????????
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
===========================================================================

Since betrothal is a Jewish custom, using this word 'porneia' to instruct the gentiles means that porneia cannot in any way specifically mean, and limited to, sexual sin during the JEWISH betrothal period.

So we can know with absolute confidence that when our Lord says 'except for fornication' pertaining to divorce, that adultery is not committed upon REmarriage in such cases, that His exception applies to His followers, ALL of them, not just Jews....this is the truth that scripture as a whole provides.

HOME \t
1

Mark and Luke which were written to Gentiles \t \t
\t

Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matter

Some state that because Matt. was written to Jews that the difference of the exception clause (Matthew 19:9 and 5:32...the part that says ‘’except for fornication” (porneia) applied only to the Jews because of their betrothal customs.
The assertion that because the exception clause is present in Matthew, yet not in Mark that it is only for Jews is absurdity.
Lets look at the example of the empty tomb and see the great differences there. between these two writers.

Mat 28:2-6 And behold, a great earthquake occurred; for an angel of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. (3) And His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. (4) And the guards were shaken for fear of him, and became like dead men. (5) But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. (6) He is not here! For He is risen, just as He said. Come; see the place where the Lord was lying.

Mar 16:5-8 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right clothed with a white robe, and they were alarmed. (6) But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has arisen! He is not here! See the place where they put Him. (7) But go, say to His disciples, and Peter, that He is going before you into Galilee; there you shall see Him, just as He said to you." (8) And going out, they fled from the tomb, but trembling and amazement held them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

See how Marks description of the Angel(s) is lacking greatly compared to Matthews?
Marks writing seems many times to just be recording occurances without adding a lot of detail.
Possibly why Mark is the shortest of the Gospels
Mark doesnt even mention this "Great Earthquake" that Matthew tells about.

So WHICH is right.....Mark to the Gentile, Matthew to the Jews ?
Was it One angel or two?
Did they appear like a young man in a white robe to Marks audience, or like lightening to Matthews?
Do these record TWO different events or one ?

Did the great earthquake happen according to Matthews account or not?
Was the earthquake taught to Jews and not to Gentiles ? Some would have to say as much by the way they teach that Matthew is written to Jews and Mark to Gentiles.

ALL of them are right, we take the TOGETHER in CONTEXT and find the HARMONY between them.

===============================================================================
We see other discrepancies, even among the SAME writer Luke in Acts.

And the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
(Act 9:7 EMTV)

versus

"And those who were with me observed the light and became terrified, but they did not hear the voice of the One speaking to me.
(Act 22:9 EMTV)

We have them hearing, but not seeing in chap 9, then just the opposite in chap 22.
Which is correct?

Possibly its meaningless as that isnt the point of the text, but we can cleary see that even when its the same writer discrepancies can occur, let alone a writer simply not recording every detail that another has.

==============================================================================
Matthew being written to Jews has NO bearing on this matter.
There are other books such as Hebrews to those Hebrew converts and James being written to those of the twelve tribes scattered abroad.
Will we say ''these are written to Jew and therefore not for us gentiles" ?
Will we cast aside ANY teaching we dont like if it wasnt written to us gentiles specifically?

Jesus didnt SAY it was only for Jews and their betrothal year. He made on clear exception for divorce and remarriage...ONLY for whoredom or you commit adultery when you remarry.

We know this, God gives His law to humanity. He wants all people everywhere to obey Him.
When God distinguishes that a rule is for one group and not the whole, He states it clearly (below about Levitical priests forbidden to take wives ''put away'').

Since Jesus did not specify that this only applied to Jews, there is no reason to think that it did.
Since Jesus also did not specify ''espoused wife'' but clearly the word for ''wife'' was used, He must have been upholding that, as it always has, the sexual sins of the guilty break the conditional covenant of marriage. Jesus states we can put away a wife for this reason alone.

So we know that when some proclaim that Matthew was written to Jews, that it is irrelevant, it was written for the followers of Jesus Christ.
The rules apply evenly to all, the Jews do not receive some special ability to protect themselves from a whoring spouse while the rest of His children are left open to abuse. To state as much would be an absurdity.

*IF* it made ANY difference that Matthew had differences, then to follow proper rules of interpretation, we would have to do the same with EVERY book in the bible. Anything that was written to a Jewish christians would NOT apply to gentile christians if it were not repeated in a book written TO gentiles.

The fact is this is absurd.
The rules of Christianity are given to ALL of us, not some rules for this group and some to the other.
When you hear someone hand you a line like ''Matthew was written to Jews and applies to the betrothal period'' ask them to PROVE it conclusively...keeping in mind all the other material in this site.
They have not a single clear verse that makes the assertion...all they do is fill in the gaps with thier own ideas, rejecting the facts in the matter as we have discussed on this website. (ex. Porneia being ALL inclusive of sexual sin and NOT just premarital sex)

HOME \t
1

If there is any legal justification for divorce, then none of these verses can be true.

Then you understand NOTHING concerning an 'exception'.

Let me ask....are you a sinner?
Do you sin? Ever?
[b]
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
[/b]

If I use your logic then THIS passage CANNOt be true.
[b]
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

[/b]

Context, SE, context.....
by your method of understanding those two passages MUST conflict.

:D :D

YOU are the one who is contradicting himself.
Your whole teaching is a contradiction.
You have been corrected by your own group and still refuse to accept this correction.

Sure we can reconcile the exception.
It, by its very definition, opposes the normal rules....get it?..an EXCEPTION?

And again we state that *IF* you were correct, then Jesus has just done away with divorce for her not being found a virgin in Matt 19....
THEN turned right around and made EXCEPTION for just that :D :D

your doctrine is what is contradicting itself, not our Lord

Im sorry, but your NASB is not an accurate word for word rendering.

The greek words (dunamai,ou) there rendered as our 'cannot' appear in many other verses where they mean just that....CANNOT...

cannot, 48
Mat_5:14, Mat_6:24, Mat_7:18, Mat_26:53, Mat_27:42, Mar_2:19, Mar_3:24-26 (3), Mar_7:18, Mar_15:31, Luk_11:7, Luk_14:20, Luk_14:26-27 (2), Luk_14:33, Luk_16:13, Luk_16:26, Joh_3:3, Joh_3:5, Joh_7:7, Joh_7:34, Joh_7:36, Joh_8:21-22 (2), Joh_8:43, Joh_10:35, Joh_13:33, Joh_13:37, Joh_14:17, Joh_15:4, Joh_16:12, Act_4:16, Act_4:20, Act_5:39, Act_15:1, Act_27:31, Rom_8:8, 1Co_12:21 (3), 1Co_15:50, 1Ti_5:25, 2Ti_2:13, Heb_4:15, Heb_9:5, Jam_4:2, 1Jo_3:9

Your version is faulty

but we also see that regardless of hard, word for word rendering, there is a CONTEXT that causes the NASB writers to make their rendering what it is.

Huh.

and HERE is what your NASB says in the exceptoin clauses.

Mat 5:32but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, [b]except for the reason of unchastity[/b], makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mat 19:9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, [b]except for immorality[/b], and marries another woman commits adultery."

Nothing there about 'jewish betrothal' :-?

are you sure you want to keep using such a 'soft' version?

:-?

SE

hey, did cindy (lastblast) send you over here?

the timing is very peculiar.

I show up, she disappears, then suddenly you come in and make your very first post.

Hard to believe it was a coincedence :-)

I know exactly what he is talking about.
but the WORD is Cannot whether you like it or not.
It requires 'interpretatoin' understanding, and CONTEXT ..to understand fully.

The NASB writers hit it dead on, but they are NOt offering a precise, word for word, rendering...so DONT pretend like they are in your failing argument in this matter.

they rendered it according to CONTEXT, but the word IS 'cannot' according to the texts I have studied.

That same type of CONTEXT applies to your quoted passages showing that an EXCEPTION CAN exist along with the rule.

THAt is what an EXCEPTION is, SE, even if you dont get it. :-)

Sealed wrote:

The greek words (dunamai,ou) there rendered as our 'cannot' appear in many other verses where they mean just that....CANNOT...

He is talking about people who perpetually walk in their flesh verses walking in the light. Those who are of the flesh are not born of God, while those who walk in the Spirit are. It is not saying that those who are born of God will instantly achieve perfection. It is referring to our nature itself which is changed by God's regeneration. If there is no change in your nature, you are still a child of Satan, but if your mind has been renewed you are a child of God.

SealedEternal

...

Sealed wrote:

are you sure you want to keep using such a 'soft' version?

Yeah, I prefer it over the Baconian Rosicrucian translation.

Sealed

Also, it seems that the NASB translators took a bit a personal freedom in rendering, from the exception clauses.

the word 'porneia' is present in BOTH of these verses, but the translators rendered it differently each time..

Mat 5:32but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of [b]unchastity[/b], makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mat 19:9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for [b]immorality[/b], and marries another woman commits adultery."

Now, *IF* your translation were so 'perfect' and actually a true 'word for word' rendering, then those should BOTH be the EXACT same word....as both are 'porneia' (g4202) in the greek.

Just a side note....

Sealed wrote:

It seems you dont accept all that the NASB has to say then, because it no more states that 'fornication = illicit betrothal sex' than any other version does....

No, but it does say that they are discussing the Moseic Law, so the context can only be found there.

Sealed

So Jesus clearly does away with what they understand as 'for EVERY cause' divorce, explaining WHY Moses had permitted it....and how God had intended it as well.

THEN Jesus gives an EXCEPTION for FORNICATION !

If we believed your way, then He has just made exceptoin for the very thing He supposedly has ended.

Is this making sense, SE?
Ive really tried to patiently explain this to you so many times now that I dont know what else to add....

to add...interesting enough MY version DOES use the same word in both cases.....fornication. :-)

FOC wrote:
Also, it seems that the NASB translators took a bit a personal freedom in rendering, from the exception clauses.

the word 'porneia' is present in BOTH of these verses, but the translators rendered it differently each time..

Mat 5:32but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of [b]unchastity[/b], makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mat 19:9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for [b]immorality[/b], and marries another woman commits adultery."

Now, *IF* your translation were so 'perfect' and actually a true 'word for word' rendering, then those should BOTH be the EXACT same word....as both are 'porneia' (g4202) in the greek.

Just a side note....

Translating is not an exact science.

So, you agree that we have to see if the CONTEXT might make more sense of a word then?

Huh...and since MY passage basically says we CANNOT sin once born of God, then I MUST see what the WHOLE word of God says on this matter to know the WHOLE truth.

It is no different in the case of your anti-remarriage passages.
They MUST be understood within the WHOLE of Gods council.

You believe in the exception, SE, you simply alter the meaning for 'porneia' to fit your doctrine in which you show that God AMENDED a law for sexual sins less than a month later ..and also seem to believe that Jesus ENDED divorce for fornication then turned right around and made EXCEPTION for just that very sin ...

How long do you want to do this repetition here, brother SE?

You and I have pretty much no where else to take our discussion.

Folks can read your site...they can read mine....and draw their own conclusions.

NB: THIS POST WAS EDITED ON 17th May, 2006 at 1415h BST (UK)

Hello again, Sealed,

I have read the first part of your very long post, and am at last, beginning to understand that there is a fundamental confusion in the way you are using, not the Greek, but the English.

It is some of this which I'm going to address, up to your paragraph which ends

Christian teachers tear these verses out of context in order to create a loophole for divorce and remarriage.

[b]Therefore, If anyone remarries while their spouse is still alive[/b], God says it’s not a legitimate marriage in His eyes, but actually an adulterous relationship, and you will be judged as an adulterer if continue in your sin.

Jesus is saying that once a marriage covenant has been broken by one spouse, [b]the other spouse is not [i]bound[/i] to take the adulterer back into marriage union[/b].

"[b]Therefore, If anyone remarries while their spouse is still alive[/b]",

Brother, you simply cannot make this sweeping generalisation in the face of Matt 19:9. It is disingenuous in the extreme. The [u]whole[/u] point of Matt 19:9 is that Jesus is [b]separating[/b] between the spouse who has been faithful and the spouse who has been unfaithful. The unfaithful spouse is the one who has removed him or herself from the benefit of the marriage covenant and Jesus clearly suggests that they are entirely at the mercy of the spouse who has not committed adultery.

I know there are men and women who will never let the person who committed adultery, forget it. They use that moment of indiscretion as a rod with which to beat the person who was unfaithful, making their life a misery. Do you think that God does not see every single abuse committed by a spouse who was faithful to the marriage covenant in fact but not in spirit? Do you think that just because he or she is not an adulterer, God will not judge every other sin by whether they have been washed in the blood of the Lamb, now? Jesus died for every sin, including porneia and moicheia, but, He had not yet died when He was answering the Pharisees.

God Himself divorced Israel for committing spiritual adultery. Let us not forget that the whole concept of marriage is based on the union within the Godhead, and God's desire to prepare a wife for His Son.

Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

At the point in time when Jesus is speaking, He has not yet died for our sin, the Holy Spirit has not been given, and everything about the state of heart of Israel is out of synch with God's heart, except for those who have responded to John the Baptist's call for repentance and giving baptism as an outward sign of such a change of heart (and later, Jesus' own call to the same gospel).

These two sections of scripture, make it clear that divorce and remarriage are adultery, with one exception which is immorality or unchastity. Many people misunderstand the exception clause that Jesus gives here, and try to use these verses to suggest that Jesus is allowing divorce if someone commits adultery. This cannot be true for many reasons.

Actually, it is the other way round, and that's why much of what you (and others in the unconditional matrimony lobby) are confused. Jesus is saying that divorce and remarriage is NOT adultery, unless the divorced person - that is, [u]not[/u] the Plaintif but the Respondent - remarries. Then both he or she and his or her spouse are committing adultery, because, the person who committed adultery first, when they were still married to their first spouse, is the person who [b]should remain unmarried[/b] as a punishment for their sin .... that is, He is saying they do not need to be stoned to death any more, nor does the person with whom they committed adultery. This is a HUGE step forward, for the ministration of mercy from the throne of grace towards the sinner; it is also completely in keeping with the Mosaic law, where, if the adulterer had been stoned to death, the faithful spouse would be free to remarry anyway, now being widow or a widower.

See? Jesus was not making a mistake, and neither are the Bible teachers who understand the spirit of Jesus' teaching here (Matt 19:9)

'This cannot be true for many reasons.' Only because you are trying to make scripture back up a tradition of man, can you suggest this, but, there is no scriptural ground for this assertion. Believe me, brother, I know what it is like to think I could fix someone else's marriage, but the moment I had to leave my own, I realised something about marriage which is never discussed here - that it is private. It is completely humiliating to even begin to put into words the ugliness which can take place in the bedroom, (and other rooms sometimes), and while God is a witness to it all, there is no need, or requirement by Him to describe or discuss it with others afterwards. A spouse who leaves a marriage has their reasons and is often completely beyond recall with the effort they have put into making the marriage what it should be. Onlookers have no rights to judge whether the departing spouse is right or wrong, only to respect them for maintaining their own integrity.

God does not require a faithful spouse to continue in a sexual union with a fornicator or an adulterer, because God Himself does not continue in relationship with fornicators and adulterers. ONLY if there is GENUINE repentance and a change of course by the one who broke the marriage covenant, is there the slightest glimmer of hope for a meaningful reconciliation, but, even that cannot be at the beck and call of others. Broken hearts take time to mend.

The context of these verses are of the Pharisees (Jewish law experts) asking “why did Moses command….”

Matt 19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts [b]suffered[/b] you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

These two different words with two different meanings clearly describe two different acts.

[color=9933FF][b]Porneia[/b][/color] IS different from [color=9933FF][b]moicheia[/b][/color], when compared with each other, but, it is not possible to commit [color=9933FF][b]moicheia[/b][/color], without committing [color=9933FF][b]porneia[/b][/color].

EDIT: [color=9933FF][b]Moicheia[/b][/color] starts with a thought, and that thought, is [color=9933FF][b]porneia[/b][/color] - LUST.

Matthew 5:28
But I say to you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

[color=9933FF][b]Porneia[/b][/color] could also take place [i]within[/i] in a marriage. For instance, sodomy perpetrated against a wife would be grounds for his divorce, [b][i]by her[/i][/b].

[color=9933FF][b]Porneia[/b][/color] between a [b]married person and any other[/b], therefore, is [color=9933FF][b]moicheia[/b][/color]. It does not matter what kind of [color=9933FF][b]porneia[/b][/color] the unfaithful spouse commits, or with whom; [b]it is the departing from faithfulness to her or his spouse, which is being highlighted in the word [color=9933FF]moicheia[/b][/color].

Note, a single person committing sexual sin with a married person, is also committing adultery [b][i]against[/i][/b] the married person's spouse, [u]by violating the marriage covenant of the married person[/u]. Therefore, when you say

If Jesus meant adultery, He surely would have used the term for adultery -- “moichao.”

So [color=9933FF][b]porneia[/b][/color] committed between married people not married to each other, a married person and a single person, two single people, and between homosexuals or other perversions, covers every kind of sexual sin. Jesus used the all-encompassing word [color=9933FF][b]porneia[/b][/color]. DELIBERATELY. EDIT end

In case you're wondering, then, a fornicator is someone who commits porneia. It doesn't matter who he or she commits it with, but, if it is with a married person, or a person who has been divorced by a faithful spouse for his or her infidelity, the word for adultery - [color=9933FF][b]moicheia[/b][/color] - is appropriate for BOTH PARTIES engaging in porneia.

If both parties are also married, they are committing [color=9933FF][b]moicheia[/b][/color] against both their own spouse to whom they are being unfaithful, [b]and[/b] the other fornicator's spouse.

I hope you are much clearer now, as to what Jesus was trying to achieve by the exception which He knew was NECESSARY for the mental health and / or, physical well-being of both the faithful and the unfaithful spouse.

The idea that [b]God[/b] was somehow mistaken in being able to divide between the sin or righteousness of marriage partners, concerns me. This is the God before whom all things are naked and open, whose double-edged sword can divide between the thoughts and intents of the heart, as between the spirit and the soul, or the bone and the marrow, whose thoughts and ways are higher than ours, whose mercy endures for ever. Amen.

Hebrews 4:11 - 16
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. For the word of God is quick, [alive] and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (KJV)

Sealed wrote:
I have always believed in the importance of context. The problem with your position is that you cause God to seem to contradict Himself, which cannot ever be put into context.

an EXCEPTION by its very nature is a contradiction of the rules....get it yet, SE...."EXCEPT" in this case, these are the rules"....make sense?

but in your doctrine Jesus seemingly UNWITTINGLY contradicts himself by disallowing divorce for what you believe is illicit betrothal sex (due to your distortion), then He turns right around in Matt 19 and offers the very men He has just taken this supposed allowance from the very thing He has just supposedly removed....divorce for fornication.

this doctrine is a walking contradiction.

Two contradictory statements will simply never conform to one another no matter what.

and youre dead wrong.
Two contradictory statments CAN be in perfect agreement WHEN an EXCEPTION is in place giving allowance to the other.

"Everyone" cannot be put in context with "not necessarily everyone."

Sorry, youre simply wrong, SE.

There rest is now irrelevant.

Sealed wrote:

Jesus is saying that once a marriage covenant has been broken by one spouse, the other spouse is not bound to take the adulterer back into marriage union.

The covenant is until death, and not until adultery.

I Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Romans 7:2-3 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

That's why Jesus says that "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" (Luke 16:18,Mark 10:11) If there were any way to end a marriage other than death, then everyone who divorced and remarried couldn't be guilty of adultery.

Sealed

Does this add up yet?

Who is guilty of 'adultery' is those who put her away EXCEPT for fornication and remarry.

and youve yet to PROVE that this adultery is perpetual.

Hi Sealed,

I think you misread your quote of me. I said

'Do you think that just because he or she is [b]not an adulterer[/b], God will not judge every other sin by whether they have been washed in the blood of the Lamb, now?'

I did not suggest there is licence for adultery. I suggested there is NOT licence for making an unfaithful spouse's life a misery (and other sins).

You can be forgiven if you repent of your sin, which means to forsake it. Then He can regenerate your heart so that you will not practice sin anymore. If you continue to practice adultery, God's word says you are born of Him.

That's not what the text says at all. Jesus and the Pharisees both agree in these verses that it is the Moseic Law being discussed here. I explained in detail how these verses fit perfectly with the law. Your interpretation is contradictory to the Jewish law, and also is an obvious contradiction to similar statements made by Jesus in other Gospels, as well as several statements by Paul. You are tearing these verses out of context and contradicting much of the Bible in regard to marriage.

Sealed

then AFTER Jesus is finished explaining He makes an EXCEPTION that shows NO adultery is committed upon marrying another IF the exceptoin applies.

come on SE, this isnt that hard.

He divorced Israel for spiritual immorality during the betrothal, which is why He made Deut 22 & 24 to begin with. Jesus says the Law of divorce was given due to the hardness of their hearts. Since they refused to soften their hearts to God, he made a New Covenant with the Church where he regenerates our hearts so that we desire to be faithful to Him.

Sealed

NOTHING EVER states that this exception ONLY applies to betrothal....YOU add that.

And i believe we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this 'fornication' (porneia) Jesus speaks of is NOT applicable to Jews and their marital customs alone...

exhibit A...

\t \t
\tFornication (porneia g4202) cannot mean illicit sexual activity only 'during Jewish betrothal" as some try to state.

The word porneia (rendered 'fornication) is directed SPECIFICALLY to GENTILE converts in Acts 15 to tell them to abstain from 'fornication' (porneia G4202).

===========================================================================
"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Act 15:19-20)

fornication
G4202
????????
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

======================================================

Since betrothal is a Jewish custom, using this word 'porneia' to instruct the gentiles means that porneia cannot in any way specifically mean, and limited to, sexual sin during the JEWISH betrothal period.

So we can know with absolute confidence that when our Lord says 'except for fornication' pertaining to divorce, that adultery is not committed upon REmarriage in such cases, that His exception applies to His followers, ALL of them, not just Jews....this is the truth that scripture as a whole provides.
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/fornicationnotonlyduringbetrothal.html

YOU are the one who is making the claim that this 'fornication' ONLY applies to Jews....and we see that this idea is errant entirely.

Not to mention that Id bet MOST of the folks who read this thread will see the terrible contradictions Ive pointed out to you, seeing that Im no theologian and most folks are probably smarter than I am.

Did Jesus say ''wife'' or "espoused" wife

In His exception clause, Jesus is clearly refering to a lawful wife. If Jesus had been only refering to the betrothal period in the exception clause, He would have used the very term used for Mary at times...."espoused wife'' or ''espoused'' (see G3423) in His exception clause.
*IF* He were restricting His exception to the betrothal period, there is no reason to believe that our Lord would have been so vague about it.
The fact is NOTHING presented in scripture backs this silly assertion by some who say that Jesus only meant to except the betrothed wife.
This is all deceptive propaganda created to further a false doctrine... this idea does not come from Gods word.

Jesus clearly used the word that means ''wife'' or woman. A mans woman was his wife. She was his lawful wife from the moment the marriage was contracted. The betrothed wife was a lawful wife.
Jesus being a Jew and being God, knew this.
When He said ''wife'' He was refering to whoredom of a wife, pre or post consummation.
(compare Matt 19.9 and 5:32 with Luke 2:5)

Conclusion:
Jesus could have said "espoused' or 'betrothed' ("mne?steuo?" as is used for Mary) in His exception, yet He chose to use the normal word for a 'wife'(gune?) in Matthew 19.
If Jesus WAS discerning one OVER the other, His ACTUAL words would be pertaining to the consummated wife and not the betrothed at all.

But seeing that the betrothed wife was lawfully contracted in marriage, she was just as much a 'wife' for legal and religious reasons as the consummated wife.

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/13.html

Sealed wrote:

He divorced Israel for spiritual immorality during the betrothal, which is why He made Deut 22 & 24 to begin with.

Deut 22 is clearly about the sexual sins of the wife...betrothed and consummated are both covered.
Deut 24 says nothing of the sort and is your doctrinal downfall.

As i said, Deut was given over approx 40 days from my understanding.
So you are saying that God gave law for the sexual sins of a wife on one day, then less than a month later, most likely no more than a week, He decides, 'hey wait, scratch that Moses, I change my mind".....and AMENDS Deut 22... BUT ONLY for the husband.
ANYONE else who finds this wife a cheating is still permitted to have her brutally killed as per Deut 22:23-24.

This is a bit hard for us to swallow SE.

[b]Fact[/b]: The pharisees speaking to Jesus understood Deut 24:1-4 to be 'for EVERY cause' divorce.
[b]Fact[/b]: Jesus never corrected this interpretation as He had done with them on occasion telling them they 'err'pertianing to their FALSE understanding
(they did slip in their own twist by making it a 'command' rather than a permission)
[b]Logical conclusion:[/b]this "hardhearted" divorce being spoken of isnt concerning putting away for her not being found a virgin, but 'for EVERY cause" just as Gods word CLEARLY states.

This conclusion is backed by Gods word and very clearly supported by the history of the Jews pertaining to marriage.

Jesus says the Law of divorce was given due to the hardness of their hearts. Since they refused to soften their hearts to God,

as you said, Jesus is speaking to JEWS in THEIR context.

THEIR context pertaining to marriage and putting away was the above....hardhearted to the core.
That is the hardheartedness that caused that covenant (Mosiac economy) with a whoring spouse to be put away.

Jesus then adds 'EXCEPT for fornication"....ONLY if she has BROKEN the covenant can you put her away and remarry and not commit adulter against her upon remarriage.

he made a New Covenant with the Church where he regenerates our hearts so that we desire to be faithful to Him.

Sealed

He knows exactly the pain caused by a hardhearted spouse...which is why Jesus' own exceptoin harmonizes PERFECTLY with the whole of Gods word...

I have edited my long post on p6, in the second half, clearly marked, not saying anything new but rewording quite a few sentences, in the hope of the content being clearer.

Please let me know if this is not so. Thanks. :-}

Hi Sealed,

I do intend to read the rest of your post and decide whether to reply.

Hi Sealed,

I do intend to read the rest of your post and decide whether to reply.

Hi FOC,

If you have not read the edited part of my post on p6, please do, since you revived this thread. I've found it helpful to express some of my recently-found clarity on these matters, so I'd be interested if you have any comments.

you may or may not get any more response.

lastblast:
(Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39)

Exactly, yet what you would say is OK with the Lord(remarrying another while one has a living spouse) flies in the face of what you just spoke above. To remarry says that I WILL NOT allow healing to occur with the possibility of RECONCILIATION with the one God joined me to----the offense is just too great and I am not willing to wait until they come to full repentance. I would ask this: is THIS the mind/heart of Jesus Christ toward the sinner? Does He wash His hands of us BEFORE the day of judgment?

What exposes your false doctrine is that you allow for this very thing when it is a betrothed WIFE (which is a lawful WIFE indeed), then disallow it when it is a consummated wife. Scripture does not make this distinction...YOU do.

Your false doctrine ALLOWS this supposed hardheartedness (divorce for whoredom ?) to be given to a betrothed WIFE, then rejects it only because she is consummated.

Whats hilarious is NOTHING in scripture makes this distinction...and *IF* it does, I challenge you PERSONALLY to present it !

None of the wording, greek nor english, backs your assertion.
Your "evidence" has been exposed as not backing a single thing either for or against your argument (hosea/gomer,herod/herodias,Joseph/Mary, etc)

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/18.html
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/19.html
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/8.html

You folks permit hardheartedness against a wife just as quickly as you claim that we do....you simply alter the details to try to disguise this fact.

And by your actions and words, your doctrine permits a far more heinous crime against women in general by forcing them to be forever bound to an animal who even beats and rapes not only them, but even their own daughters.

This doctrine has completely missed firstly what Moses did by allowing frivolous (for EVERY cause) divorce, and then again missed what Jesus was doing in restricting it again.

Ive pointed this out to you all about 1000 times now...when you figure out that BOTH were "protecting" the INNOCENT spouse, hopefully some enlightenment will occur.

Lastblast...would you care to discuss your doctrinal views publically with me here?

Cindy,

Very briefly.

The Lord Himself did not put a burden on the faithful spouse, to receive back an adulterous partner. That may be because many times the adulterous partner has left the faithful spouse in her or his heart, and there may be good reasons for that.

God Himself allows that He should not take back an adulterous partner after a certain amount of adultery, unspecified, because He Himself could not stomach it.

Your stance refuses to accept the word of Jesus Christ Himself, as to what is, and what is not acceptable to God, by [b]adding[/b] to God's word what He did not say.

There is liberty for a believer to find their own level in this, in line with what Jesus allowed, whether it fits in with [i]your[/i] belief system, or not.

I have a question for anyone who'd care to answer it.

When Jesus quoted (in Matt 19:6)

'What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'

who do you think the 'man' is, to whom He was referring?

ALL parties would be free to remarry.

Of course you are right. I was forgetting that the unfaithful spouse would have been divorced, and therefore free to remarry.

However, without repentance toward God, and His forgiveness, he or she would still have adultery on their conscience. But, I am convinced that reconciliation with the faithful spouse is not compulsory.

lastblast wrote:

I make no such distinction FOC.

Scripture appears to have allowed Jewish men to put away their espoused wives for premarital infidelity (see Mt. 1:18-24).

Deut 22 says BOTH the betrothed wife (Deut 22"23-24) AND the consummated wife (Deut 22:22) were to be put to DEATH....not divorced.
Are you sure you have understood Gods word on this matter?

Gods word is CLEAR in this.
Any other scenario you present is your own addition to that word.

Joseph was said to be "just", so it appears for him it would not have been hardheartedness, or do you disagree?

[b]Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
(Mat 1:19)
[/b]
Nothing is said of 'hardheartedness' as Joseph wasnt about to put her away 'for EVERY (any) cause" but had justification in that he believed she had played the harlot (to which the penalty under GODS law was death...Deut 22)
There is NOTHING in His word that says joe couldnt have done the exact same thing post consummation...and you lie if you say there is.

READERS please see....
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/fornicationnotonlyduringbetrothal.html

You know where this will end, dont you cindy?

As to clinging to the "exception clause" meaning betrothal infidelity, I don't know if I can do that.

READERS please see....
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/11.html

I now lean much more heavily in the belief that porneia relates to UNLAWFUL (illicit sexual)marriages contracted (homosexual, adulterous, and incestual).

Fornication is not limited to that which you must force it to be limited to in order to make your doctrine work.

It is ALL sexual immorality, married or unmarried...bestiality, incest, etc.

You are only "leaning" because its the ONLY way to make your false doctrine coherant.

But the fact is 'forncation" CANNOT be limited in the manner you try to force it to be...

READERS please see..
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/fornicationnotonlyduringbetrothal.html
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/2.html
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/3.html

THOSE types of marriages are the only ones that can be put away because God never joined them to begin with.

I again will CHALLENGE you to provide a single shred of proof that it is...

It would NOT be hardhearted to put such away, it would be walking in obedience to the Lord's commands/laws.

Gods COMMANDMENTS/LAWS says this wife, betrothed or consummated, is to be put to death.
No concession on that matter is EVER offered in scripture.

It would not be 'hardhearted' by GODS command to take this betrothed wife to the door of her father (Deut 22:21)and brutally stone her to death where her mother, father, brothers and sisters can all be witness.
Yet you find some hardheartedness in simply dismissing her for whoredom.

I believe you cannot understand the simple fact that this 'hardheartedness' Jesus speaks of is for putting her away 'for EVERY cause' (aka "frivolously") just as the Jews had been doing as per Deut 24:1-4.

Prayerfully you will make the error of making some comment concerning Deut 22 being AMENDED by Deut 24:1-4 so we can disect that for all to see.
Is that what you now believe?

It was my dialogue with you on Family Life concerning Herod and Herodias which really brought me further down the road in this belief.

For me, if Jesus was saying, in fact, that ONLY UNLAWFUL marriages(homosexual, incestual, adulterous) contracted could be put away and the parties be blameless in His sight, it would then fit perfectly with Rom. 7:2-3 which shows that neither adultery nor a remarriage will dissolve a LAWFUL union joined by God Himself. Blessings in Him, Cindy

And please, dont hand me a line of not being UNDER law. Paul is CLEARLY speaking to those who know the LAW for his example to be understood. Not presently being under law is irrelevant to his point.

IF she remarries while this former husband lives she IS an adulteress, not having been LAWFULLY put away as per the LAW Paul refers to (Mosiac economy).

*IF* you ever come to grips with the FACT that Paul is speaking to those who "KNOW THE LAW"...then I believe you might someday let go of your hate for your remarried brethren and accept the WHOLE truth in this matter.

Romans 7 doesnt present the contradiction you seem to believe it does.
Paul is speaking about the law to those that know that law.
That law made provision for divorce for EVERY cause thus proving that this 'law of the husband' was not UNconditional as you seem to try to assert.

READERS please see
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/6.html

Evidence of remarried divorcees alive and well in the early church..
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/15.html

Thanks cindy for returning and giving me further chance to refute you before a new crowd.

wm

lastblast wrote:

reconciliation with the faithful spouse is not compulsory.

Yes, and I think Paul discussed this one very clearly: the one who has departed must remain unmarried. That is the alternative to reconciliation, though I believe the Lord's ultimate goal is humbling all and bringing all to repentance so that those whom HE joined together are walking in unity as He desires. Blessings in Him, Cindy

READERS please see...
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/1cor7study.html

Paul is clearly telling those who are BOTH christians to stay single or reconcile as he then says "BUT to the REST.." and then lays out rules for these who are UNequally yoked...that the believer is not in bondage to the UNbeliever who deserts.

Cindy seems to be unable to see the "BUT TO THE REST" part there that DOES distinquish the two groups.

Its amazing how you ADD distinctions when you must, then REJECT the clear ones from Gods own word.
Of course, the motivation is apparent.

Dorcas,

Could you provide me with scripture showing the Lord's words on this? What comes to my mind when reading your post is the passage our Lord spoke concerning forgiving 70x7 times. Blessings in Him, Cindy

Are you suggesting that 70x7 is perpetual?
Then you condemn God Himself with your judgment as not even HE perpetually ignored whoredom..did He?

It would have been 'hardhearted' for God to put them away 'for EVERY cause'.
But He was justified in ending that covenant...just as a spouse is justified in doing so for whoredom, that which Christ Himself has made exceptoin for.

the one who has departed must remain unmarried

You know very well that this applies only to the separation of couples who were both Christians before the marriage, or, who both become Christians and decide to stay together. If one becomes a Christian, and the other wants to leave, the Christian can remarry. You know this.

The reconciliation to which I was referring, which I believe you also knew very well, was that of a faithful spouse not having to take back an unfaithful spouse. (Matt 19:9)

Therefore, if from within a Christian marriage, one partner commits adultery, the Lord's word - that the faithful spouse is free to divorce the unfaithful spouse, and to remarry - this NOT being adultery - stands.

That is why when porneia (and moicheia) have [b]not[/b] occurred, Jesus [i]endorses[/i] that the marriage covenant has [u]not[/u] been broken, and therefore, divorce of a [i]faithful[/i] spouse creates the potential for adultery, should [i][b]either[/i][/b] of the divorcees remarry.

Clearly, the Lord is saying in Matt 19:9, that [b]He ceases[/b] to count them as 'joined', if one has broken the marriage covenant. This is not to say they cannot be reconciled... but, [b]it is not compulsory[/b].

I believe the Lord's [b]ultimate[/b] goal is humbling all and bringing all to repentance

so that those whom HE joined together are walking in unity as He desires.

Why can you not accept this simple concept, and accept God's decree?

God Himself does not wait forever. He understands more than you do, that people have a breaking point, and it is not His desire to destroy the sanity of the faithful spouse, by punishing* them - the concept you resisted for the adulterer, in an earlier post - for the [u]un[/u]faithful spouse's sin. Everyone must bear their own punishment, or, accept Jesus Christ's sacrifice on their behalf. Even so, having been reconciled to God, which is [u]His[/u] 'ultimate goal', may not guarantee reconciliation to an estranged spouse.

Were God truly like this*, then it is inconsistent with His`otherwise deeply compassionate nature.

Cindy said

What comes to my mind when reading your post is the passage our Lord spoke concerning forgiving 70x7 times.

(NKJV) Matthew 18
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
23 "Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.
24 "And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.
25 "But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made.
26 "The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, 'Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.'
27 "Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
28 "But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took [him] by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!'
29 "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.'
30 "And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt.
31 "So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done.
32 "Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me.
33 'Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?'
34 "And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
35 "So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses."

Please could you show me the bit where the Lord says a man is to forgive his brother 70 times 7 for committing adultery with his spouse?

(NKJV) Leviticus 18
1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God.
3 [b]'According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances.[/b]

4 'You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I [am] the LORD your God.
5 'You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I [am] the LORD.

6 ' None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I [am] the LORD.
7 'The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She [is] your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness.
8 [b]'The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover; it [is] your father's nakedness.[/b]

(A list of other forbidden liaisons follows the above.)

Two things are clear from the foregoing verses from Leviticus.

Firstly, God regards the male responsible for uncovering and approaching a woman.

Secondly, He regards the male responsible for approaching a female who is already one flesh with her husband.

(Young) Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 5
1 Whoredom is actually heard of among you, and such whoredom as is not even named among the nations--as that one hath the wife of the father! --
2 and ye are having been puffed up, and [b]did not rather mourn, that he may be removed out of the midst of you who did this work[/b], 3 for I indeed, as being absent as to the body, and present as to the spirit, have already judged, as being present, him who so wrought this thing: 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ--ye being gathered together, also my spirit--with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 to deliver up such a one to the Adversary for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

(NKJV) 1 Corinthians 5:1
It is actually reported [that there is] sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles -- that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you.

Leviticus 18:20
'Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, to [b]defile [u]yourself[/u] with her[/b].

24 ' [b]Do not defile yourselves with any of these things[/b]; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.
25 'For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.
26 'You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you

1 Corinthians 6
15 Do you not know that [b]your bodies are members of Christ?[/b] Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not!
16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh."
17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, [b]but he who commits sexual immorality sins [u]against his own body[/u].

19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?[/b]

20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.

Cindy, I don't see Paul mentioning the 70 x 7 here. Do you?

When Jesus answered the Pharisees, He endorsed the natural order expressed in Leviticus, by referring to the man putting away his wife, or taking a wife.

I asked on p9

When Jesus quoted (in Matt 19:6)

'What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'

who do you think the 'man' is, to whom He was referring?

It has been immensely helpful to me personally, to keep searching the scriptures to find the whole counsel of God. Cindy, thank you for your part in provoking me. :-)

It has been immensely helpful to me personally, to keep searching the scriptures to find the whole counsel of God. Cindy, thank you for your part in provoking me.

Wait till youve gotten a bit more aquainted with the Sealedeternals... ;-)

Seeing the blatant inconsistancies and outright fabrications being presented to falsely accuse the brethren is enough to make any true follower of Christ take it upon themselves to study to show themselves approved so that they may themselves be equipped to cast down the lies of our enemy Satan who has infiltrated our very ranks.

There is a difficulty for women who believe they must submit to men, while suspending their own spiritual discernment, falsely believing a male has the right to overrule what [b]God[/b] has shown them. This attitude (of submission) was cultivated in me for quite a few years, and while being a good submitter, I came to a whole lot of spiritual and mental harm, because I was submitting to one who was not even born again, nor full of the Holy Spirit - not even a Christian, in fact. But, he was leading a church which was cultlike in its isolation from other truly Christian teachers.

This same scenario exists in other settings, were 'doctrines of men' are made to rise above the word of God itself, and certainly not made to conform to the word of God. Even, the word of God is altered in interpretation, to justify false doctrine, or, is simply misunderstood and preached incorrectly.

The confusion which is thus engendered, especially when a flock-member believes their salvation depends on compliance with denominational doctrine, rather than a living relationship with God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, can take a long time to unpick. Often there is truth woven into the fabric of the culture, and other people are complying.... so it takes a BIG move - usually of desperation, I guess - to break out and risk everything with God alone.

In this respect, if it is true that authority is on the head of men because they are male, rather than because they are submitted to Jesus Christ as Head of the Body - and God's will and word - then they are even more culpable, for not making a stand for truth, in Jesus, Who is THE TRUTH.

Romans 9
my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] [b]the adoption[/b],

2 Corinthians 5:16
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, [b]yet now henceforth know we [him] no more[/b].

Cindy, Israel after the flesh rejected the first covenant, and the Messiah, and must come the same way as any other believer.

Furthermore, it is clear from John 15
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

and

Romans 11
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Even in the vine - or the olive tree - it is required of us to abide, or, 'the betrothal' is over. God is not done with divorcing idolaters.

lastblast wrote:

huh....and how many times had God forgiven Israel, His beloved, before He ENDED the covenant He made with their forefathers?

Rom. 11:25-33. :-)

You are right in that God does not wait forever, but the scriptures do teach this........until the wedding occurs and the doors are shut, there is time made for repentance(mt. 25:10, II Pet. 3:9). The same heart and mind that is in Christ is supposed to be what leads our thoughts/actions---even to the sacrificing of our own dreams and wants. Blessings in Him, Cindy

Satan and his minions were in Gods presence and cast down....just as ANYONE who would or will apostate themselves would be.

NOTHING in scripture shows that Jesus exception only applies to the Jewish custom of betrothal.
You and your kind ADD that to His word.

AGAIN i will demand that you provide even one shred of PROOF that Jesus ONLY gave His exception to Jews for their marital customs.

Jesus gave His instruction for His FOLLOWERS, not just Jews

You believe the Lord has limitations on what sins He/or we can should forgive? I don't see where He limited forgiveness.

John the Baptist went to Herod, not Herodias, to accuse him of having his brother's wife(notice the divorce/remarriage did not make Herodias Herod's wife. She still belonged to Philip).

We do have to acknowledge that Jesus does account a woman guilty of adultery by putting away her husband and marrying another(Mk. 10:11-12).

So you are again conveniently pointing out what seems to back your doctrine, then not mentioning that which refutes it.

Jesus said 'except for whoredom' that day in Mark 10....Matt 19 proves that fact.

lastblast wrote:
Foc,

I see from your responses that you are continuing to conduct yourself in a less than Christ honoring way, so I will choose to not enter into more dialogue with you. As you seek His face and will for your life, may you be blessed. In Jesus, Cindy

lastblast wrote:

Cindy, Israel after the flesh rejected the first covenant, and the Messiah, and must come the same way as any other believer.

Absolutely correct. That is my point. God is NOT done with Israel in the flesh, is He? Blessings in Him, Cindy

EVERY person of Israel who wishes to come to God since the cross MUST become one with the NEW bride of Christ...they will come thru this NEW covenant or they will not come.

There has ALWAYS been a remnant of Jews as scripture shows, that does not nullify that God is a divorcee who put away a covenant, that is now dead, with a whoring nation.

lastblast wrote:
Foc,

If you really did want honest dialogue, instead of baiting and then lashing when one responds, then I would be more than happy to dialogue with you, but.........the problem is I KNOW you now.

You have followed me to at least two different boards and "dialogued" with me.

The fact that you are now on your third marriage

and are quite embittered against your last two wives

They both are leading the exact same life of sin they were before.

makes you not a good person to be involved in an open, honest, dialogue on this issue.

I know you well enough to know that when your doctrine is backed into the corner that THIS is what you turn to...distraction.

FACTS are FACTS....my life does not alter those facts.
The FACTS as a whole stand against your doctrine...period.

You are one who can be perceived as having a personal "agenda" on this topic---and that certainly shows through on how you conduct your self towards those who have opposing beliefs. Blessings in Him, Cindy

This is the typical tactic Ive seen from most of this doctrine.
Firstly they distract with ones personal life, trying to make the claim that they cannot be credible because of the details of their own lives.
Then they try to show that the 'meek' one must be presenting the truth.

Keep your eye on this type of distraction, its common enough

...

\t \t
\t When is a marriage ''dissolved''

Some ask ''when is marriage dissolved"
Firstly, dont let yourself fall into the trap of when ''one flesh'' is dissolved. This is a semantics game those of the anti-remarriage camp play because they KNOW scripture speaks nothing of it. So when you cant find it, they believe theyve won the discussion.

When the union is 'dissolved' is defined clearly in Deut 24:1-4.
Jesus never altered that definition of 'divorce', He merely reigned in the allowances FOR the divorce.
When a divorce is filed for the reasons Jesus (GOD) has excepted for, THAT is when the marriage is 'dissolved'.
Nor did Jesus argue/correct the pharisees 'interpretation' of Deut 24:1-4 being 'for any cause'.
He merely stated 'why' Moses had given the allowance to begin with.
Moses had permitted them to put their wives away 'for any cause' because 'she find no favor in his eyes' simply over their hard hearts.
Moses chose to go with the lesser of the 2 evils....easy divorce or a tortured innocent wife...to deal with a problem that was out of control.

The fact is, as is proven by 1 Corinthian 6:16, that ''one flesh'' is nothing more than a man being one body with a woman, whether she is his wife or not. This is proven by Pauls even quoting our Lords words in 6:16 there to show it IS the same.

When God created Adam and Eve, He created them in manner so as they could be come ''one flesh'' or one body (aka 'sex'). So when you see this reference, consummation between the two is all that is being shown.

When we marry someone, or in the customs of the Jews when betrothed or contracted in marriage, we eniter Gods holy union. For the Jews, they did it a bit differently. A virgin was given a year at home with her family after being contracted in this union, but make no mistake, she WAS the lawful bride of her husband as is shown in Deut 22 where she would have been brutally killed for sexual sins just as if she were fully married and consummated.
Once this union was contracted, she WAS married for all religious and legal purposes.

And yet, she was not yet ''one flesh'' with her husband. That happens when the marriage ceremony is over, and he takes her to his bed and they consummate their union.
A man is also 'one flesh' or 'one body' with a harlot he is with (1 Cor 6:16) showing that 'one flesh' is not exclusive to the marriage union.

When we look at divorce in Matt 19, we see that the pharisees were askng Jesus if they were permitted to divorce ''for any cause'', something they had grown used to over the centuries.
Jesus response is to tell them that from the beginning it wasnt so....God had created them male and female, the husband would leave parents and cleave to his wife. They become ''one flesh'' together and what God Himself has put together, man should not tear down.

They ask Jesus why then Moses had permitted them to do so.
He tells them its because their hearts were hard. (Do a study on the matter and youll see what Jesus meant, these Jew who asked Him these things were very vile, wicked men who tormented thier innocent wives many times)

He tells them whoever puts her away now for any reason short of fornication, commits adultery when he remarries as she does as well, because God doesnt have to accept a divorce just becuase we file it.
If its not for this fornication, then sorry, its not valid and you DO commit adultery by remarrying.

This 'dissolving' of a marriage occurs very simply, when one party has broken the covenant with sexual sin and the innocent party decided to officially end it just as God finally ended His covenant with Isreal that He made with their fathers our of Egypt.

They did not keep His covenant, and He tolerated thier sins for a long time, but fully and finally He put that covenant away publically so as to not make any mistakes about it (see Zech speaking about His covenant ending)

The plain fact is that *IF* a marriage was not ''dissolved'' and ''one flesh'' kept the union intact, then Moses was kidding himself when he wrote Deut 24:1-4 as NOTHING he could have permitted would have broken this supposed indestrucible ''one flesh'' bond created in the beginning.

In essence Moses would have been condemning to eternal torment anyone who he permitted to divorce in this manner as they would still have been ''one flesh'' with their first spouse based on what anti-remarriagers show as being some eternal, UNbreakable 'one flesh' bond creaded by God from the beginning. This supposed perpetual ''one flesh'' bond would have still been intact while they were married to another and thus living IN adultery. The same thing many try to assert today.

Surely Moses allowed for easy putting away, but divorce it was, it ENDED the covenant, as ALL divorce does when scripture allows for it, as in Jesus' exception.

Moses even allowing putting away at all for ANY reason shows that there ARE cases that can be permitted to end a covenant without the death of one party.

Now, surely it was for hardness of hearts in the case of those Jews Moses permitted as we can see the condition of their hearts all throughout the OT. These same Jews are the types that are asking Jesus ''can we divorce for ANY cause'' as Moses had to permit to keep the wife safe.

If Moses was permitted to allow divorce simply because ''she find no favor in his eyes'', then surely the Lord who created us all has the AUTHORITY to narrow that to sexual sin alone as shown by His own exception.

There is no magic thread attaching a man to a woman called ''one flesh''.
One flesh is a sexual relationship between a man and woman, married or not, as proven in 1 Cor, 6:16. A man and wife are ''one flesh'' just as God created them to be when they consummate thier union and are literally 'one flesh' thru they subsequent sexual relationship because they are 'male and female' as He has made them.

When God joins two people in HIs union, it is done as soon as the two have agreed to marry and are contracted in whatever manner is acceptable to both of them.
The jews had their customs, as do all peoples in the world, and most are different, but all are equally valid.
Isaac and Rebekah had no betrothal at all...she agreed to be his wife, she went immediatly to him and became just that.

When one has broken the covenant in a manner that Jesus or Paul permits, then divorce is filed publically to show the world our intent, that is when marriage is ''dissolved'' . ..'one flesh' becomes a moot point as these two are no longer under a covenant together over sins JESUS Himself has excepted.

Dont let yourselves be drawn into semantics games my brethren. Stick to the facts. Gods word is very easy to understand, theres just a LOT to it.

===============================================================================
A response to a forum poster

lastblast:
Nowhere do we read where Paul ever gives any indication that a marriage is dissolved, with the freedom to marry again, ..............
Nowhere does he teach that adultery dissolves. Nowhere does he teach that a remarriage dissolves the previous marriage. Nowhere does he teach that a divorce dissolves...............
In Him, Cindy

response by FOC:
cindy, youre being outright deceptive in this matter.

Deut 24:1-4, a CLEAR passage that shows the meaning of 'divorce', shows EXACTLY what happens to the marriage when a man 'divorces' his wife....she is NO LONGER his WIFE !
THERE is your 'dissolved'...
Jesus did NOT REdefine 'divorce/putting away'.
He clearly stated that ONLY in a case of whoredom can one do so and remarry without committing adultery.

What is painfully clear here is that you arent studied in this matter whatsoever.
Otherwise youd have known that 'divorce/putting away' doesnt need to be DEFINED again in the NT...Moses already did that.
"Divorce" is 'putting away' with the written proof that Moses required in Deut 24.
Jesus didnt alter that meaning...nor the meaning of 'putting away'.
All He did was do away with the allowance for frivolous divorce (for any cause) that Moses had permitted.
So as I said, your semantics game is apparent to all...

Dorcas said

Cindy, Israel after the flesh rejected the first covenant, and the Messiah, and must come the same way as any other believer.

Cindy said
Absolutely correct. That is my point. God is NOT done with Israel in the flesh, is He?

my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption,

'The adoption' is discussed in both Ephesians and Romans 8, and Paul puts it FIRST here, because, as FOC has pointed out, this is the only way to the Father, now, by being adopted into His family; by the cross, Jesus made of Israel and the Gentiles, one new man - joined the two folds (of sheep) to make one flock.

So, your mention of Israel in the flesh, is slightly concerning, because all of Israel in the flesh was crucified with Christ, as much as all Gentiles in the flesh were crucified with Christ - should any of us choose to receive His death (as we should - Romans 6).

I do not believe that I Cor. 7:15 gives the right to remarriage.

I believe ALL first marriages are joined by God.

This is similar to John pointing out in ch 20 that Jesus did not say he would live until His return.

It is clear from the scripture I quoted in an earlier post on this page, that being one flesh with another person does not 'make' a marriage. It is unscriptural to suggest that it does, and we've talked about this before.

You refuse to accept the testimony of those whose paper certificate was not and could not be endorsed by God's blessing. I understand this ruins your belief system, but, it takes TWO people to be joined to make one flesh, and if one is not 'joined' with the other, you have to take their word for it, and accept the emotional debris which ensues, if indeed it does.

Sometimes there is a great deal more emotional health for BOTH parties, when a paper marriage is allowed to move from fiction into divorce.

He did not make marriage just for Christians,

It is pie in the sky to think all marriages will work as if they are Christian marriages. Even Christian marriages are made between two fallible human beings, no matter how serious they are about pleasing God. What hope can there be of non-Christians - satanists, sex offenders, murderers, violent and angry people - making a happy marriage. It is another strand of unobtainable idealism, Cindy. The reality is, it's hard enough for Christians who honestly give God every opportunity to change them from within, to make a marriage 'work', sometimes.

Concerning the "option" of taking back an unfaithful spouse, sorry, but I cannot reconcile what you believe with what the scriptures say. NOT taking back one who has been unfaithful and comes in repentance is UNFORGIVENESS----something completely at odds with Christian teachings on reconciliation and restoration.

But, you are, again, suggesting that Jesus was mistaken when he said a faithful spouse was free to divorce an unfaithful spouse. Rather you than me, choosing to dispute His words.

there is time made for repentance

even to the sacrificing of our own dreams and wants.

No matter what one 'gives up', there will continue to be conflict where there is unrecovered pain. This is only natural. It is not a sin to be in pain. It is a sin not to take it to the Lord for healing, once it is recognised. A person whose inner health has been restored, is in a sound position to lay down their life in whatever way the Lord asks.

If sacrificing your dreams and wants brings you real heartache, there is something wrong. It should be possible to spend time with the Lord wrestling through every stronghold which exalts itself against the knowledge of Him, and to win. If winning is evasive, then either your heart is not in winning, or, there are other needs to be tackled, to bring victory within reach.

One thing I am sure, if two people are not one, they will know, and staying in such an arrangement is not required by God for salvation.

\t \t
\t Did Jesus say ''wife'' or "espoused" wife

In His exception clause, Jesus is clearly refering to a lawful wife. If Jesus had been only refering to the betrothal period in the exception clause, He would have used the very term used for Mary at times...."espoused wife'' or ''espoused'' (see G3423) in His exception clause.
*IF* He were restricting His exception to the betrothal period, there is no reason to believe that our Lord would have been so vague about it.
The fact is NOTHING presented in scripture backs this silly assertion by some who say that Jesus only meant to except the betrothed wife.
This is all deceptive propaganda created to further a false doctrine... this idea does not come from Gods word.

Jesus clearly used the word that means ''wife'' or woman. A mans woman was his wife. She was his lawful wife from the moment the marriage was contracted. The betrothed wife was a lawful wife.
Jesus being a Jew and being God, knew this.
When He said ''wife'' He was refering to whoredom of a wife, pre or post consummation.
(compare Matt 19.9 and 5:32 with Luke 2:5)

Conclusion:
Jesus could have said "espoused' or 'betrothed' ("mne?steuo?" as is used for Mary) in His exception, yet He chose to use the normal word for a 'wife'(gune?) in Matthew 19.
If Jesus WAS discerning one OVER the other, His ACTUAL words would be pertaining to the consummated wife and not the betrothed at all.

But seeing that the betrothed wife was lawfully contracted in marriage, she was just as much a 'wife' for legal and religious reasons as the consummated wife.

[b]To any moderators who happen thru[/b], this type of post is what causes problems where Im concerned.

lastblast wrote:
Foc,
.............. The fact that you are now on your third marriage and are quite embittered against your last two wives makes you not a good person to be involved in an open, honest, dialogue on this issue. You are one who can be perceived as having a personal "agenda" on this topic-.........

Cindy makes sure to 'sound' very meek and mild, but the CONTENT of this post is clearly a personal attack on the details of my life.

Cindy believes she can skirt around your rules concerning attacking another poster by pulling this kind of stunt rather than using harshness in her posts.

Id ask that *IF* Im corrected in this thread, that cindy is also told to stop making indirect personal attacks making these kinds of comments...

cindy has NO clue as to the emotional state Im in pertaining to my exes and uses this to aggrivate the situation in an attempt to cause me to break your rules when I respond harshly with her.

Ive seen this from her probably 100 times at this point.

If correction is to be made here as far as Im concerned, ask cindy to refrain from her inuendo meant to defame my character and to STICK to the topic of the thread. (which is what fueled my posts concerning her going to psychics/palmreaders)

mrbillpro, if dorcas and i 'let it go'...do you think lastblast is going to?
Do you actually believe she will pass up the opportunity to perpetuate her doctrine in our absense?

Ive literally seen lastblast tell a woman who was put away from her first husband for adultery and then REmarried that the reason she still had feelings for her first husband was that she was STILL married to him. *IF* this woman takes cindys advice, she FRIVOLOUSLY divorces her second husband. Some of us will not quietly sit by and allow this.

This doctrine DESTROYED the marriage of a woman named Cheryl who calls herself '1956ford'...and if lastblast and those of her doctrine have their way, by OUR remaining silent, then EVERY second marriage while the first spouse lived, no matter how vile this person remains, would be torn down under this accusation of 'perpetual adultery'

Now brother, you can feel free to leave lastblast and this false doctrine to its own ends, but SOME of us are called to dispel this lie.
Please dont take it upon yourself to stifle the WORK of Gods Spirit thru His children who take His word very seriously.

God bless.
wm

Additionally, mrbillpro, can you see Paul telling those in the church to simply allow false doctrines instead of fighting against them?

that idea is foreign to both the Gospel and the word of God as a whole.

[b]LASTBLAST: FoC, before I was saved I went to a palm reader/psychic. She told me things that were IMPOSSIBLE for her to know[/b]

While we're speaking about 'credible' persons and their pasts....was this not your own quote lastblast/cindy?

So, cindy....does the PAST make one unable to discern truth? Is that what you are claiming?

I surely NEVER consulted Satans own minions for help as you have admitted to.

Augustine brought a lot of baggage into his walk with Christ.
Things he brought in with him affected his WHOLE walk...his perceptoins on our faith. Oddly enough, sex and marriage were the main areas as is the case here with you.

He was invovled with a cultlike religion before salvation and he carried some of their bizarre beliefs into christianity with him.

Are you sure your views are unclouded in this matter?

MrBillPro wrote:

FOC wrote:
Additionally, mrbillpro, can you see Paul telling those in the church to simply allow false doctrines instead of fighting against them?
that idea is foreign to both the Gospel and the word of God as a whole.

Whatever your on a mission here a blind man could see that, I said what I felt about this kind of stuff being exposed to the whole forum and I don't think it's healthy, I don't know why it could not be taken to PM's so I will say goodbye to this thread because I sure don't want to get caught up in this nor be any part of it, carry on solder. :-(

You DO understand the concept of a discussion forum, I assume.

And I have debated these folks privately and no longer do so by my own judgment.

WHO might be enlightened when two folks exchange words privately? No one, thats who.

cindy isnt going to change so PMS are a waste of time. Someone on the OPEN forums might find direction in seeing this discussion unfold.

And if you feel to leave this thread, please do so.
As a man of your word, Im holding you to this as your brother in Christ.

wm

Are we not called to a higher calling to live as Christ.....to die to our selves for His sake?

I started answering your post in order of your points, and it got longer and longer, so, I've decided to begin at the end, where really you touch on the heart of the matter, in your sentence which I've quoted.

Please, please, do not think I'm nit-picking here. This is a major topic, and every nuance of emphasis needs to be extracted from the relevant scriptures.

Your sentence is loaded with active verbs, apart from the first one, 'called', with which I agree.

There is, however, a big difficulty for anyone who thinks they have to die for His sake, as this is not possible. We only can [i]receive[/i] His death for our sake. This is all we are required to believe into. Our faith in His death, sets us free from sin.

And, through His death, He opens the way for us to enter a relationship with His Father, who can be our Father, after we have repented of our sins, and been forgiven. Thus cleansed by His blood, we may receive the Holy Spirit who enables us to live as Christ.

For [i]years[/i], I did not understand the beauty of receiving His all-sufficient death on my own behalf, but it is the simplest thing to do, and it is a step which cannot be avoided if resurrection life is to be engaged effectively.

I would like to leave these few thoughts for now, and return to answer the earlier points you raised, in a future post.

Scroggins wrote:
Sure is a semantics fest in here....

GOD help us...

If you believe as much, can you offer your own work and detailed studies on this matter?

Do you consider any discussion where much time, study and effort is spent in relaying information as 'semantics'?

You sound a bit like a friend of mine who continually tells me that too much learning is wrong, even if its Gods word.
Does 'study to show yourself approved' sound familiar?

Regardless of your stance on this issue, this discussion is hardly a game of words.
If you feel as much, possibly you simply are unable to grasp what is being presented.
if so, feel free to inquire and Im quite sure any poster here will be more than happy to help clear things up for you.

If youre simply being insulting, then you might consider not wasting diskspace and bandwidth posting irrelevance.

God bless

Scroggins.
when you pop in, make the assertion you did without backing it with some evidence of some sort, it simply makes it seem like youre being sarcastic with everyone in the thread.

I think a bit more grace could have been offered on your part by simply not responding here if youre not happy with the content so you didnt offend anyone needlessly, dont you think?

We however, are called to be light in a dark world----showing the world God's love to the unlovely/undeserving. We are not called to follow the world's ways of handling our tribulations. Blessings in Him, Cindy

Gods marriage covenant is a HOLY union that is to not to be defiled or made mockery of.

Christianity is NOT under a HOLY covenant with the world...we ARE under one with our spouse, christian or not.

We have no agreements, no contracts, no conditions set forth when we deal with those of the world.

We DO have things such as these with our spouse.
BOTH parties came under this covenant, even the unbeliever, understanding the CONDITION of fidelity.
It is a given, EVERYONE who marries, christian or not, understands this, that adultery DEFILES this monogamous, man/woman union.

What Im getting at is when you put up with being beaten down and hurt by the world, you may well be doing as you are called.

God did NOT create covenants so that any man could abuse them, neglect them, defile them, etc....yet your doctrine permits this perpetually.

Clearly a God who would fully and finally end a covenant He Himself had made is presenting that there comes a time when enough is enough.

If God Himself did not have this perpetual patience that you seem to require, then how on earth do you believe that this very God who finally ended His own covenant could ever expect a mere man to be even stronger and more patient than even Himself?

Heres the facts.
God ended a covenant with Israel for playing the harlot against Him...for ongoing idolatries.

When Jesus gives His exceptoin it fits perfectly within the context of Gods whole word that when His holy covenants are casually and purposely broken perpetually, that this 70x7 thing you present seems to not always apply (in that YOU seem to interpret it as 'perpetuity')....unless of course you are accusing God Himself of not being as forgiving as He is requiring of mere men.

Scroggins wrote:
No claim was made by me other than fact. This is all a battle of semantics with very high stakes (the evidence is in almost every last post in this thread by these people.)

People do not want the truth because it shakes their foundations. So they play games in an attempt to make you stumble and make them feel that much more right.

Firstly, what side of the tracks are you on in this matter so I might more correctly discern your intent ?

Either you are saying I am playing games to cause someone to stumble or you are saying this of lastblast.
Neither is the case.
Cindy firmly believe she is representing the truth....even if she is not presentiong the whole truth...she believes she is.
I dont believe she is simply playing a game trying to cause someone to stumble.
Cindy knows the consequence of such a crime as that.

This Battle, Dear Brothers and Sisters, is one that should be tread upon lightly. You will not win minds with sheer blade alone. The sword draws blood, but can it fix the wounds?

You might well consider refraining from posting unless you have something to offer in relatoin to the actual topic here.

If my arguements are 'semantics' then so be it.
As long as my posting privelidges remain, I will offer whatever is necessary to help anyone reading these threads to see the whole truth on this issue.

Cindy,

You spiritualise this matter beyond what God does, in that the man and woman promise [b]each other[/b] to keep themselves for each other. God witnesses this promise between the two people and endorses their union with His blessing [i][b]while they keep those promises[/i][/b].

Once the promise [i]between the spouses[/i] has been broken by one of them, God is in an impossible position to continue a blessing upon the original union, unless there is immediate repentance and returning by the spouse who committed adultery..... AND an acceptance of that returning by the spouse who did not commit adultery. God DOES NOT put a [i]requirement[/i] on the spouse who was faithful, to forgive.

This is because He Himself retained to Himself the right not to forgive a wayward spouse. And He Himself plans to marry another - the new Israel.

That's one reason, that the option NOT to forgive, MIGHT prevent some would-be adulterers, from straying. God knows this.

But, knowing this, once a person HAS committed adultery, they had really - in other words - not just broken the promise they made, they have committed themselves to a different sexual union, (whether their respondent is free to marry them or not). Such a committment not just [i]represents[/i] but IS, an ending to the marriage covenant.

Yes, it's a mess, but, it is a reality which God does not pretend doesn't exist.... This IS a difficult concept, because there are always consequences, in divorce, for other people.

But, God doesn't minister the confusion of the unfaithful spouse onto the faithful spouse. He gives the faithful spouse the opportunity of a clean break and a new relationship. That is GOD's prerogative. He knows it is the path to greater human health in some situations, which I noticed FOC expounded last night, again.

As I also have said before, God knows people have a breaking point. It appears from the words of Jesus, that He also is more interested in the sum of human happiness, than those who support unscriptural doctrine - no matter how wholeheartedly they do so, (erroneously).

Another aspect has come to my attention, namely, that a marriage - the one flesh part - is not based on agape, it is based on eros. The reason a Christian marriage (where fidelity prevails) is expected to succeed, is because of the agape. But, if the eros dies, God recognises the damage that does to the emotional health of both spouses. That's why where the eros is still intact, He does NOT permit divorce 'for every cause'.

It goes without saying that the love of which He speaks in Ephesians 5:22 - 33, is not compatible with domestic abuse of any kind.

Now, it occurred to me to investigate the damage done by the Council of Trent, which first introduced the idea of unconditional matrimony. (See next post.)

I was fascinated by the first sentence, which seeks to put the formation of Eve, as the foundation of their lie.

We know that when Adam was naming the animals, which were male and female, he found himself looking for one like him, and could see no-one. So, when God has put him into a deep sleep, and forms Eve, Adam's first words reflect his desire for a [i]human[/i] with whom to rub noses.

We are all, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, are we not? I believe Jesus quoted the relevant part of Genesis, with regard to marriage. Adam did not have a father and mother to leave, but, he [i]was[/i] required to cleave to his wife, and we assume that he did.

It is also interesting that Adam understood the concept of parenthood, even though his Father was not human. (Luke 3:38)

Genesis 2
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
{Woman: Heb. Isha} {Man: Heb. Ish}
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (KJV)

Here is the relevant statement from the first Council of Trent.

Let me draw your attention to the specific references within the text, to those places where scripture is refuted, and the authority of the Roman Church placed above the word of God.

Perhaps someone else could draw these out in future posts, with the exact paragraph numbers.

SESSION THE TWENTY-FOURTH,
Being the eighth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the eleventh day of November, MDLXIII.

DOCTRINE ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
The first parent of the human race, under the influence of the divine Spirit, pronounced the bond of matrimony perpetual and indissoluble, when he said; This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. But, that by this bond two only are united and joined together, our Lord taught more plainly, when rehearsing those last words as having been uttered by God, He said, therefore now they are not two, but one flesh; and straightway confirmed the firmness of that tie, proclaimed so long before by Adam, by these words; What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. But, the grace which might perfect that natural love, and confirm that indissoluble union, and sanctify the married, Christ Himself, the institutor and perfecter of the venerable sacraments, merited for us by His passion; as the Apostle Paul intimates, saying: Husbands love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it; adding shortly after, This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church. Whereas therefore matrimony, in the evangelical law, excels in grace, through Christ, the ancient marriages; with reason have our holy Fathers, the Councils, and the tradition of the universal Church, always taught, that it is to be numbered amongst the sacraments of the new law; against which, impious men of this age raging, have not only had false notions touching this venerable sacrament, but, introducing according to their wont, [Page 194] under the pretext of the Gospel, a carnal liberty, they have by word and writing asserted, not without great injury to the faithful of Christ, many things alien from the sentiment of the Catholic Church, and from the usage approved of since the times of the apostles; the holy and universal Synod wishing to meet the rashness of these men, has thought it proper, lest their pernicious contagion may draw more after it, that the more remarkable heresies and errors of the above-named schismatics be exterminated, by decreeing against the said heretics and their errors the following anathemas.

ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY.

CANON I.-If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, (a sacrament) instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that those degrees only of consanguinity and affinity, which are set down in Leviticus, can hinder matrimony from being contracted, and dissolve it when contracted; and that the Church cannot dispense in some of those degrees, or establish that others may hinder and dissolve it ; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that on account of heresy, or irksome cohabitation, or the affected absence of one of the parties, the bond of matrimony may be dissolved; let him be anathema.
[Page 195] CANON VI.-If any one saith, that matrimony contracted, but not consummated, is not dissolved by the solemn profession of religion by one of the married parties; let him be anathema.

CANON VlI.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that the prohibition of the solemnization of marriages at certain times of the year, is a tyrannical superstition, derived from the superstition of the [Page 196] heathen; or, condemn the benedictions and other ceremonies which the Church makes use of therein; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema.

[url=http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html]http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html[/url]

Hello Scroggins,

I see you have been diligent in expounding scripture clearly. Thank you. May it be a blessing to many who have been burdened with unscriptural doctrine, promulgated by carnal thinking.

And if found unmarried in relations with a man, they are to marry and may not part unless there is unfaithfulness.

Clearly, from Paul's actions, he felt free to make a vow to God. This was a matter of faith between him and God. It did not involve the co-operation of any other human being. And this was not a covenant, in that it was one-sided.

When making a marriage covenant, the man and woman are making it to each other. God witnesses this, and the Hebrew writer says 'Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled'.

I've also been thinking about the word 'defiled', because it appears in both Leviticus, and Paul's writing. There is a related statement by God to Peter, 'What God has cleansed...' (Acts 10)

The main thing that dawns on me, in the light of knowing 'the Church' was not involved in the pretence of ratifying marriages until the sixteenth century (the Roman Catholic Council of Trent), is that the marriage vows are not made TO GOD, although they are made in His presence.

A marriage covenant, therefore, is a human, not a divine institution.

Cindy,

I feel I'm falling behind in what I'd like to say to you. I [i]am[/i] hearing you, and will do my best to respond while your comments are still warm... if you know what I mean ... including yesterday's. But, I will not forget.

I will state again; be careful how you go about this, or people will stumble. And everyone here knows the consequences of that crime.

That is good that you are praying. Are you fasting on this as well?

That is fine Brother. Say what you will of me and think what you will of me. But maybe you should examine the way you come across and maybe start sounding more like Sister Linn on this.

That is good then Brother. All I can say is that I hope you post only things that edify.

You seem to be somewhat confused as to how we are to deal with false ones.

It's really has nothing to do as a whole with the RC Church

Quite simply, until the Council of Trent in the EDIT [b]1500s[/b] end, the Church - no church - was part of the marriage arrangements made between families.

For Christians, though, and Jews, God had always been involved.

This discussion is as much about the pronouncements of Jesus, which are truth for every member of the human race living on God's earth, as it is about whether Paul knew what he meant and what he was talking about, when he said certain things in certain letters to certain churches.

You, and probably some others watching this thread, seem not quite to realise what a bondage is being perpetrated against innocent man, women and children, by the false doctrine of [b]unconditional matrimony[/b] - something God Himself does not 'espouse' - and the subsequent false doctrine of [b]perpetual adultery[/b].

For those reading, God Himself UNDERSTANDS the individual timeline of each life on earth, and it is His desire that EACH PERSON should know HIM personally. Therefore, the fairness of marriage arrangements are of deep interest to Him.

I disagree with Cindy in her assertion that "God made marriage for man".

I believe [u]God Himself[/u], and therefore us made in His image, cannot but be 'for marriage', but, [b]I have a question now, for FOC.

Where in scripture is there support for the idea that marriage is 'HOLY'?[/b]

This is not to say that God does not bless a marriage union, but, to say that marriage is [i]holy[/i], goes a step further (I feel).

I have grown up with the idea this was an introduction of the Catholic Church, which, because of the Council of Whitby, (the synod was held in 664 AD at Whitby Abbey,) affected the whole of the English church, at least. How the Presbyterians ended up with church ceremonies for marriage, I'm not sure.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Whitby]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Whitby[/url]

lastblast wrote:

the marriage vows are not made TO GOD, although they are made in His presence. A marriage covenant, therefore, is a human, not a divine institution.

I disagree completely. Marriage was made by God for man. He is not merely a "witness" to the marriage, He JOINS the two as ONE. Blessings in Him, Cindy

You have yet to ever present PROOF, as I have asked of you and your group many times now, that 'fornication' is applicable ONLY to Jewish custom or equivalent.

Acts 15 alone stands in direct defiance of your doctrinal views...yet you seem unwilling to refute this fact.

=================================================

\tFornication (porneia g4202) cannot mean illicit sexual activity only 'during Jewish betrothal" as some try to state.

The word porneia (rendered 'fornication) is directed SPECIFICALLY to GENTILE converts in Acts 15 to tell them to abstain from 'fornication' (porneia G4202).

===========================================================================
"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Act 15:19-20)

fornication
G4202
????????
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
===========================================================================

Since betrothal is a Jewish custom, using this word 'porneia' to instruct the gentiles means that porneia cannot in any way specifically mean, and limited to, sexual sin during the JEWISH betrothal period.

So we can know with absolute confidence that when our Lord says 'except for fornication' pertaining to divorce, that adultery is not committed upon REmarriage in such cases, that His exception applies to His followers, ALL of them, not just Jews....this is the truth that scripture as a whole provides.

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/fornicationnotonlyduringbetrothal.html

====================================================

*IF* your claim of unlawful marriages is true, then the council is ONLY restricting SOME instances of sexual sin there and clearly not even mentioning simple adultery.

In Ephesians AND in Colossians we see NO mention of 'adultery' being spoken against either...only this fornication.
Are you claiming that Paul was not interested in prohibiting adultery in those churches but only 'unlawful marriages' or incest?

As I said before, this idea is what I have issue with----if one CHOOSES to forgive? Do we have a "choice" to forgive or not to forgive? Sorry, but "moving on" to someone new is walking in unforgiveness and outwardly stating that one WILL NOT forgive and be reconciled to the one God joined them with. However, some believe that others CAN choose to forgive and to either accept back a repentant spouse or to "stand" praying, no matter the length of time for a spouse who is wayward. Which choice seems to align with the very heart of Jesus? It seems clear to me.............. Blessings in Him, Cindy

You agree with this as you have to.
You simply change the meaning of 'porneia' to make your false doctrine palatable.

Scroggins said,

If we walk away, we are to do it forgivingly.

Thank you for bringing the mind of the Spirit to bear on this point.

The thing that grieves me beyond measure is that there are people who have entered into 2nd marriages who ARE convicted they are living in a state of perpetual adultery since they have a spouse who is still living. Many a pastor has tried to brush away those convictions.......and the people in such cases remain in torment----because of what they see in the Word of God. Those pastors cannot explain why repentance is lived out in one way concerning some illicit relationships(forsaking the sin), yet concerning this sin why they are counselling in opposition to this(to remain in that illicit relationship).

MOST folks who simply pick up the bible and READ Jesus exceptoin see it for what it is.
it is only when they start hearing your doctrinal twists that they start to make the twist themselves and start rejecting that adultery is not committed upon remarriage when the former spouse is put away for sexual sin whereby they committed adultery to begin with.

It is ONLY after having another person of YOUR doctrine push this lie on them that they start to fall for this fabrication.

tell me that NO one EVER said anything to you to start you down this path your on ....

1956ford is a perfect example of a woman who was duped into divorcing frivolously.

and you have yet to PROVE this 'perpetual adultery' nonsense from Gods word.

to add, Im on my third marriage over the harlotries of my exes and NEVER have felt conviction for being remarried.

are you claiming Im not a chrisitan?

I believe as I've sought the Lord on this issue, He has greatly opened up my eyes to not only what the written Word states, and where many Pastors are contradictory/hypocritical in their teachings/practices on this issue, but what is His very heart on this issue.

The fact remains that many proponents of the "lawfulness" of remarriage while one has a living spouse cannot explain away the meaning of Rom. 7:2-3 though I've seen many "words" on it.

Paul is using ONE aspect of marriage to show our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.

Under the very LAW Paul is refering to DIVORCE for EVERY cause was permitted.
Paul would have KNOWN this fact...but apparently you do not...or do and simply try to ignore it.

Go through commentaries and see what you find. Either they gloss right over it(saying that this is not a teaching on marriage)or skip those verses entirely. Why is that?

What commentary are you using?

Additionally.
Romans 7 CLEARLY is not a teaching on marriage.
if it WERE, then Paul, a man who KNEW the law, would have KNOWN that Deut 24 (the LAW) gave provision for this very woman being spoken of to have been put away AND remarried.

You simply refuse to accept the FACT that Romans 7 isnt the conclusive rules for marriage or otherwise Paul himself is teaching those who 'know the law' while being seemingly ignornant of it himself.

The truth is that Paul was addressing CHRISTIANS, not Jews living under the law. He again spoke of the permanency of marriage in I Cor. 7:39----again, to a CHRISTIAN audience. After a full discourse on marriage, he never once mentions it to be ok to remarry while one had a living spouse.

Jesus own exception clearly shows a REmarriage.
Are you denying that fact sister?

Even in I Cor. 7:15, we cannot find such an allowance, though many "infer" that is what Paul meant, though he used a different word for "bondage" than he used in his teachings on the marriage "bond".

READERS SEE....
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/virginboundbylaw.html

Then we go to Herod/Herodias----she divorced her husband Philip (the historical account of that relationship can be found in the writings of Josephus). Her divorce did not dissolve her marriage to Philip. Her remarriage (adultery/incestual relationship) to Herod did not dissolve her marriage to Philip. John clearly states that Herod HAS Philip's wife. This aligns with Paul's teachings in Rom. 7:2-3, which states that if a woman marries another while her husband is living, she SHALL be called an adulteress. Herodias was Philip's wife, not Herod's wife---in spite of the divorce, in spite of the remarriage (adultery)-----which also lines up with Jesus' teachings that if one divorces and remarries they commit adultery or if one marries one divorced, they commit adultery (because the Lord has not "loosed" the bond between the lawful couple.

Blessings in Him, Cindy

Let us next discuss some of the evidences used to support their assertions.

Some assert that becuase John accused Herod of having his brothers wife, that ALL divorce and remarriage is adultery.
But lets look at the facts that will show there is far more to this picture than many want to present.

The first thing to remember is that Jesus had not yet begun His ministry when John started accusing Herod and Herodias.(Luke 3:19-23)

Johns ministy was the beginning of, the transition into, the gospel kingdom
Herodias was the niece of Phillip and Herod, the daughter their own brother Aristobulus, and as such a close kinswoman.....

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
(Lev 18:14 KJV)

....thus marrying her was unlawful for either Phillip or Herod as she was closely related.

Another sin that was committed was that Herod and Herodias met and conspired to put away their spouses for no good reason, then marry each other. (Josephus XVIII, 5)
Not that God approved of this incestuous marriage to begin with, but this frivolous manner in which they held the marriage covenant exposes just how morally corrupt they were.

Some will try to assert a point of 'while his brother still lived" that it was unlawful for Herod to have Herodias, but we see that "while his brother lived" is a moot point entirely.
.
*IF* Herodias had not been a neice, and *IF* Philip HAD been dead even, Herod STILL could not have her.
He was ONLY permitted to marry His brothers widow *IF* she was childless according to Gods WHOLE law.
A man is not permitted to marry his brother wife.
He could ONLY marry his brothers widow IF she was left childless...otherwise it was unlawful.

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
(Lev 18:16 KJV)

"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
(Deu 25:5 KJV) (not dissimilar to Matt 22:25-28)

The Law does not say..."until your brothers death" as would be the case normally where a man can marry a widow.
Gods law is clear...you SHALL NOT marry your brothers wife. Plain and simple.
The only exception to this rule seems to be Deut 25:5 above.

Johns use of 'your brothers wife' in his accusation of Herod quite possibly is explianed by the law showing that Herod could NEVER have Herodias as his wife, even if she wasnt his neice, simply because Herodias DID have a child with his brother Philip...thereby making it UNLAWFUL for Herod to EVER have her.

Of course, neither was Philip lawfully permitted to have this neice, so who knows what all John held against them?

===============================================================================

Now lets approach this from the NEW covenant pov.
My assertion is that Jesus has done away with frivolous divorce....lets see if that fits as well.

Josephus shows us a great deal on this matter in book 18.
Chapter 5

"ABOUT this time Aretas (the king of Arabia Petres) and Herod had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had, married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, (15) who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's daughter. However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome: one article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas's daughter"

FRIVOLOUS DIVORCE !!
These two met and conspired to put away thier spouses for NO reason other than they wanted each other.
Not to mention the fact that she was his own NIECE, and thus closely related.
In both the old and the new covenants this union was morally corrupt !

In either covenant these two were in opposition to Gods instruction for marriage and presented NO remorse at all for thier actions. They were led by lust, and put away spouses for no reason at all to have each other.

They would have been defying Mosiac law under that covenant, and been going against Jesus own exception in the new.

In NO way does their vile incestuous affair NULLIFY our Lord Jesus' own exception.

In 1 Cor. 7:39 the Law states the same as seen time and time again. Marriage is matrimony until “death do us part.” But is this not held under the Law of the exception clause? I submit to you that it is.

She will not accept that even *IF* it ONLY applied to jewish betrothal it is STILL a contradictoin to 'until death' as betrothal, as she admits, is LAWFULLY married just as after consummation.

to her, for some reason, her contradictoin makes sense while ours does not.

Getting these folks to comprehend that an 'exception' by its very definition is contrary to the norm is seemingly impossible.

As dorcas pointed out earlier, we were both made into one new man....the rules apply evenly to both now.

Jesus, in making His exception, was not making it for Jewish custom, but was simply telling the pharisees how things were to be under His "law" instead of being what they had been...easy divorce for no justifiable reason...as Moses had had to permit with these hardhearted Jews to keep them from actually harming an innocent wife.

the exceptoin our Lord gave applies to BOTH Jews and gentiles as we know God does not cater to traditions of men.

Hi FOC,

I've brought this question from me to you, over from the previous page, because it seems to have got left behind.

[b]Where in scripture is there support for the idea that marriage is 'HOLY'?[/b]

This is not to say that God does not bless a marriage union, but, to say that marriage is holy, goes a step further (I feel).

I have grown up with the idea this was an introduction of the Catholic Church, which, because of the Council of Whitby, (the synod was held in 664 AD at Whitby Abbey,) affected the whole of the English church, at least.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Whitby]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Whitby[/url]

dorcas wrote:
Hi FOC,

I've brought this question from me to you, over from the previous page, because it seems to have got left behind.

[b]Where in scripture is there support for the idea that marriage is 'HOLY'?[/b]

Then I commented:

This is not to say that God does not bless a marriage union, but, to say that marriage is holy, goes a step further (I feel).

I have grown up with the idea this was an introduction of the Catholic Church, which, because of the Council of Whitby, (the synod was held in 664 AD at Whitby Abbey,) affected the whole of the English church, at least.

Well, firstly look to the creation of the union between Adam and Eve.

God Himself made this woman FOR the man, He must have some vested interest in this union rather than it simply having come about by an act of man.

Then look at the our 'marriage' to the Lord.
Marriages here between men and women are an allegorical example of this marriage of Christ and His bride.
[b]
Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
[/b]

also;
[b]
Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
[/b]

clearly if God is going to judge those who defile His institution of marriage, He must see it as more than simply a human institution.

Also, why would God forbid the taking of certain wives unless He had vested interest in these unions?

Im not sure if I can dig you up a passage that states in precise words "marriage is holy", tho I will look it up...but I think more that we conclude this from His clearly creating the institution and His making so many rules for it.

We also see that God Himself is the one who joins this union, not man...do you think God joining them makes it holy or simply neutral?

[b]Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(Mat 19:6)
[/b]

It is also of significance that Jesus in Mt. 19:9 speaks of a husband who puts away his wife to marry another and speaks that whoever marries this wrongly put away woman will be committing adultery. Clearly the husband's adultery (unlawful second marriage) does not give the "innocent" wife allowance to marry without sin or sin on the part of the man who marries her.

Until now, I had thought you are genuinely confused, and genuinely want to understand God's heart and word, but this last post pushes me towards the thought you are being deliberately dense, or, you have been blinded by something, and need a proper blaze of light from the Almighty to show you the consistency of His thought.

Do you not SEE that you have crossed the two circumstances over, in your attempt to justify your position?

In Romans 7, there was NO ADULTERY, until a woman left her faithful husband and remarried. THAT IS WHY she is called an adulteress.

Whereas in Matthew 19, the man who remarries, is ONLY FREE TO DO SO, because of the PRIOR adultery of his wife, for which he has already divorced her.

IF, in Matthew 19 she is put away as you say, WITHOUT ADULTERY, it is THE SAME as in Romans 7. Neither of them are free to remarry without it being adultery, in that situation.

It is also of significance that Jesus in Mt. 19:9 speaks of a husband who puts away his wife to marry another and speaks that whoever marries this wrongly put away woman will be committing adultery. [b]Clearly the husband's adultery [/b](unlawful second marriage)[b] does not give the "innocent" wife allowance to marry without sin or sin on the part of the man who marries her[/b].

The "innocent" wife IS ALLOWED to marry again, if it is HER HUSBAND who committed adultery before she divorced him.

If you really can't see this, it would helpful if you just said so.

lastblast wrote:
Scroggins, if Paul would have used a different scenerio (not used a woman who remarries (committing adultery)) as an example in Rom. 7:2-3 and if Jesus had not used the example of an innocent wife put away committing adultery if she remarries as an example, I may agree with you. However, it is not the case.

It is not by accident or coincidence that Paul uses such a wife as an example instead of a faithful wife.

Again, this woman whom was under the very law Paul is refering to COULD have been put away for EVERY cause at that point WITHOUT the death of her husband.
Paul is simply using this 'law of the husband' that is normally until death to show our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.

This has been explained to you ad nauseum

It is also of significance that Jesus in Mt. 19:9 speaks of a husband who puts away his wife to marry another and speaks that whoever marries this wrongly put away woman will be committing adultery.

Paul clearly shows in Rom. 7:2-3 that this woman will be called an adulteress as long as her husband lives.

JEsus Himself shows in Matt 19 that from the beginning this law that bound the wife to her husband until his death was in place.

So what of Moses?
Are you saying he WAS indeed the greatest lawbreaker of all time, causing men and women alike to fall to a fiery doom in hell when he permitted them to divorce and remarry?

You surely must be with your stance as NO man supposedly can break what God has joined in your mind...meaning that Moses himself not only permitted divorce AGAINST Gods will and this 'law of the husband'...but also had the audacity to ADD to Gods own law INSTRUCTION for divorce WITHOUT the death of the husband.

something is very seriously errant with your doctrine dear lastblast....

Just for the record again: I do not believe "porneia" is adultery within a lawful marriage and that is why I think you are having trouble understanding how I see this

I fully intend on digging up those ECFs words where even they use 'fornication' (porneia, g4202) to describe the adulteries of a wife...since you have clinged so tightly to these men.

it literally doesnt matter what you think concerning 'porneia', cindy, the words use in the NT clearly shows that ALL sexual sin is covered with its use....your denial of this fact only shows either how entirely unstudied you are are....or, even worse, how willing you are to reject anything that doesnt agree with your doctrine.

I believe 'porneia' can refer to two different things: one, in regards to betrothal marriage (Mt. 1:18-24). Secondly, it can refer to illicit marital relationships that the Lord DOES allow to be put away because He never joined them together to begin with: adulterous marriages(one married another's spouse), homosexual marriages, incestual marriages. Blessings in Him, Cindy

Also, your statement has serious flaws.

Again, in Ephesians and Colossians NO mention of adultery is present..only porneia and a couple of its forms (pornos, ect).

IF your assertion were true, then AGAIN Paul would not be instucting against ANYTHING except those areas you just covered.

And AGAIN...the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 uses ONE word to tell the gentiles what to abstain from as far as sexual sin goes...."PORNEIA"

You can ignore my posts all you want to cindy, but when the council used that ONE word, it CLEARLY shows that porneia is NOT a word directed ONLY at Jewish sexual sins as it is clearly aimed at gentiles there.

And *IF* you were correct, the ONLY those two areas are being prohibited with the gentiles which would be preposterous.

the COMMONLY accepted definitions of porneia is ALL sexual sins...immorality in general....whoredom...harlotry....not what you want it to be restricted to.

I think Dorcas seems to finally be coming to understand what Ive known about you for some time...that you seem to simply reject any amount of information, regardless of how accurate it is, if it stands against your doctrine.

I thank you for one thing, cindy.
Your doing what you have here has caused yet another one of His children to see more light thann they did.
Each and every time you are so adamant agaisnt the facts folks see this and it becomes clear to them that your doctrine must be false in order for you to be so determined to reject factual details as often as you do (ie, the actual meaning of 'porneia', for one)

The thing is that neither a divorce nor a remarriage (adultery) dissolves the bond of marriage with her first husband, only death will accomplish this severing.

[b]"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
(Deu 24:1-4)
[/b]

clearly no death was required, yet Jesus shows that this 'until death' bond was from the beginning.

Something just isnt right here cindy.
Does it take death (from the beginning) or are there 'exceptoins' that may apply?????

Moses ever giving permission to divorce WITHOUT the death of the husband shows conclusively that EXCEPTIONS can and DO override the rule....the same kind of exception that Jesus made.

\t \t
\t Porneia...aka ‘’fornication’’

Some claim that fornication in Matthew is PRE marital sex alone and that divorce and remarriage for any other reason is not permissible.
But we see that conflicts with the use of the word throughout the NT.
Porneia is whoredom, harlotry, illicit sex of any kind.
This included every sexual sin of every nature.
Sex with men, women, animals or any other perversion in existance or any new ones that a person can come up with.
This can be commited by anyone. A husband or wife or a single person.
When porneia (any sexual sin) is carried out by the married, the crime of adultery is commited.

Even the current english definition of ‘’fornication’’ is against these false doctrine as it says NOTHING about Unmarried people, but only that the two engaging in ‘’forication’’ are not married to each other.

Here is the current definition...

Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Notice not a single word about either person being ‘’unmarried’.
One or both could be married to someone else, they just arent marrried to EACH OTHER.
Or both could be single.

Fornication means just what porneia presents,...having sex with someone who ISNT your lawful spouse, whether youre married or not.
Here is the greek word rendered as ''fornication'' in your KJV bibles.

G4202
????????
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

===============================================================================

Also....

In Acts 15 and 21, four items are given for gentiles to abstain from as presented in the following verses.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication (G4202, same as the exception clause in Matthew).

1. Things offered to idols
2. blood
3. Things strangled
4. fornication (G4202 same as the exception clause).

I ask those who say fornication (porneia G4202) is premarital or betrothal sex only and not “adultery”, why is it that the writer ONLY used ''porneia'' in Acts 15 and 21 and didnt seem to think it necessary to mention ''adultery'' as something to abstain from as well?
Hes already on the topic of sexual sin here, why not mention the big one *IF* adultery is a separate sin?

The reason is "porneia'' covers ANY sexual sin. Paul knew that as did whoever rendered Jesus words in Matthew into greek.
When it was used it in Acts 15, he was laying out a blanket coverage for ANY sexual sin, that we abstain from ALL sexual sin. Just as Jesus meant all sexual sin in Matthew 19.
''Porneia'' (whoredom, harlotry), by default, would be ''adultery'' within a marriage, there was no need to mention adultery, it was covered. And neither was there any need for Jesus to use the word adultery, which would have left a hole or two in His teaching (see ''why didnt Jesus say ''except for adultery)
===============================================================================
1 Corinthians chapter 5

We see in the following passage that only the fornicator is mentioned..

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
(1Co 5:9-13 KJV)

Now, *IF* adultery isnt included in 'porneia' or 'fornication', why on earth didnt Paul mention not keeping company with the adultlerer ?
Was Paul stating to not keep company with the fornicator..but hey, its ok to hang out with adulterers ?

Hardly.
Paul used a word that covers all sexual sin.
He mentions a ''brother'' and isnt it odd that the word he chose rendered as 'fornicator' here is the masculine form of porneia ?

G4205
???????
pornos
Thayer Definition:
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
2) a male prostitute
3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

Paul was clearly stating to not keep company with any man called a brother who is out having illicit sex.....married or not.

Porneia and its forms are all inclusive of sexual sin of the married and the UNmarried.

===============================================================================
In Ephesians and Colossians both we see references to Fornication, but none about adultery.

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
(Eph 5:3-5 KJV)

(whoremonger being the masculine form ...pornos)

and

When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
(Col 3:4-6 KJV)

So if this porneia (fornication) does not include all sexual sin, then we would have to suppose that Paul is only directing these two churches to abstain from SOME sexual sins (incest, premarital sex, etc) , and surely not adultery (if it were the case that porneia is not all inclusive of sexual immorality)

===============================================================================

When Jesus' words were rendered as ''porneia'' in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, He was saying the same thing ''Sexual Sin'' or whoredom. Jesus did not mean just PREmarital sex, and neither does the definition of ‘’fornication’’ present that idea either.
He used a word, the same as in Acts 15, that covers ALL sexual sin....whoredom....as ‘’fornication’’ clearly shows as well. ....porneia even covers the possiblity of bestiality if it has occured.
We cannot divorce our spouse and remarry without committing adultery against that union, EXCEPT for any sexual sin...EXCEPT that this person we marry has had sex with someone they arent married to.

That is what is clearly conveyed with ‘’porneia’’ and what is also presented with the REAL definition of ‘’forncation’’

What is funny about this one is we can get total agreement from everyone that a man can ‘’divorce’’ his wife for ‘’porneia’’, but the anti-remarriage camp then restricts the meaning of the word to fit their doctrinal stance...whichever it may be based on the many VARIED versions of their doctrine.

ConsiderHim wrote:

FOC said: Porneia (fornication) includes ALL sexual immorality, cindy, adultery as well.

Essentially true. However, 'proneia' cannot be seen as 'adultery' in Jesus exception clause of Matthew 19:9, as it causes a 'circular thinking' that doesn't make sense. In the same verse, 'mochia' is deliberately used to differentiate between 'pornea' as fornication or adultery.

I believe if you plan on entering this discussion you need to actually offer some clear evidence to back your assertoin.

"essentially true" unless it conflicts with what I believe" ?

You cant simply enter this thread and handwave away all the work presented herein.

It causes no circular thinking whatsoever as adultery and fornication within marriage are one and the same just as Hermas has also shown and proven that he agrees.
You need to PROVE that there is any issue caused by these words being interchanged

The word porneia has a concrete definition that does not bend and sway to your needs.
Now please....PROVE to us how fornication means 'adultery' in EVERY instance EXCEPT for Jesus exception clause....

additionally, there are instances where adultery and fornication appear together....and there are as many or MORE where fornicatoin and its varied forms appear completely alone...including the entire letters of Ephesians and Colossians.

As recently proven, even Hermas believed fornication and adultery as one and the same...

LASTBLAST: :Just for the record again: I do not believe "porneia" is adultery within a lawful marriage and that is why I think you are having trouble understanding how I see this.

And yet these ECFs that you commonly quote seem to disagree entirely.....

=============================================================

HERMAS
On Putting One’s Wife Away for Adultery.
Chap. I.
...And I said to him, “Sir, if any one has a [b]wife[/b] who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in [b]adultery[/b], does the man sin if he [b]continue to live with her[/b]?”
And he said to me, “As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her [b]fornication[/b], and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her [b]adultery[/b].”
=============================================================================
Clearly hometaking had already occured since it plainly asks if he should continue to live with her, so we dont have to worry about someone claiming that this was simply a betrothed wife.

Apparently, cindy, this isnt causing any misunderstanding on dorcas part at all, but seemingly yours seeing that even the men you love to quote believe that fornication and adultery can be one and the same.

The reason why Dorcas is having trouble understanding how you 'see' this, is most likely because she, like Hermas, understands that 'fornication' (PORNEIA) DOES include adultery.

Hermas seemed to use 'fornication' and 'adultery' in such a manner as they were one and the same WITHIN a marriage....against your ideas above.

I'll be digging up more over as I find it over the next few days.
The purpose here is to show, since many of the anti-remarriage camp use the ECFs words so often, that even these ECFs saw adultery as 'fornication' .....and that whether folks today try to limit 'fornication' or porneia to 'unlawful marriage' , incest, ect.

Porneia (fornication) includes ALL sexual immorality, cindy, adultery as well. Even the ECFs understood that apparently.

Additionally, and with great contradiction, you have stated in the past that you do accept betrothal as lawfully wed, yet you believe that putting away was permitted during this year.

Im having a very hard time believing that you often have the audacity to accuse my doctrine of containing contradictions given these blatant ones yours presents.

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/adulteryisfornication.html

.

Cindy...your post did absolutely nothing in this matter.
We ALL know hermas was antiremarriage....that isnt the point at all. Apparently you missed the point.

Hermas CLEARLY states that this WIFE who is committing adultery is [b]fornicating[/b]...thereby helping to crush this error of yours where YOU say fornication is 'not adultery within a lawful marriage"
(a comment which defies even your own belief since you DO agree that betrothal IS lawful marriage)

LASTBLAST: :Just for the record again: I do not believe "porneia" is adultery within a lawful marriage and that is why I think you are having trouble understanding how I see this.

Hermas says your wrong....your own ECF....and yet you seem to still make up what you wish to in this matter.

which was my ONLY point.

=====================================================
HERMAS
On Putting One’s Wife Away for [b]Adultery[/b].
Chap. I.
...And I said to him, “Sir, if any one has a [b]wife[/b] who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in [b]adultery[/b], does the man sin if he continue to live with her?”
And he said to me, “As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her [b]fornication[/b], and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her [b]adultery[/b].”

=====================================================

Possibly, cindy, you need to REevaluate your position on fornicatoin and admit your view is errant in this matter so that we might see you are at least willing to admit when you are errant and consider the ACTUAL facts involved.

Porneia INCLUDES adultery as proven by Hermas, your dear ECF...contrary to YOUR own views that defy the actual definition of the greek word porneia (g4202)

Hello Cindy,

Thank you for bearing my exasperation with such a good attitude yesterday.

I have time to pick up on only one quote, this evening. It's going to take me a while to go back through the posts where you've left questions, but I do intend to answer them.

Slowly, it is dawning on me, that you are willing to take the word of men, over the word of the Lord, whereas experience has shown many times, that He IS the Word and His word really does break open mysteries.

If - just if - you were to believe that Jesus Christ was [i]not[/i] mistaken when HE said it would not be adultery for a faithful spouse to divorce and remarry, I believe every other consideration which concerns you, would find a place of peace within the rest of the written word OF GOD.

Regarding your comment about adultery here, I wish to say a little more:

Just for the record again: I do not believe "porneia" is adultery [b]within[/b] a lawful marriage and that is why I think you are having trouble understanding how I see this.

I'd go further, and highlight the last bit which suggests idolatry is [i]only[/i] figurative.

Idoltrous sexual practices go on all the time, both outside and inside marriages. That is why I've emboldened 'within', to emphasise what I mentioned in an earlier post.

The idea that it is ok for rape and sodomy to be committed within a marriage, and this is somehow [u]not[/u] an abomination in God's sight, appalls me. Even if the couple knew this is how they wanted to behave after they are married (which some do), this is not a marriage bed which is undefiled, by any biblical definition.

The attempt to exclude porneia from marriage is so unrealistic, that if you weren't so serious about it, I'd say you were disingenuous. I will settle for naive.

Moving on, it is not possible to read these verses from Ephesians 5
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

and then say that one who only ever rapes his wife is demonstrating the kind of tenderness that Christ has for the Church. Of the man who beats his wife up first, this is also an extreme departure from Paul's three-times exhortation to 'husbands, love your wives'.

Neither should you assume I'm talking about unbelievers. This sort of thing goes on in so-called Christian marriages. They are [i]not[/i] Christian marriages, of course, in anything other than name, often because it enhances the respectability of the perpetrator of the porneia, and makes it humiliatingly difficult for the other spouse to get support or protection from Christians.

Please explain to me again, how it is God overlooks such porneia within a marriage, without compromising His own Integrity?

This scripture endorses my previous post, I believe.

(KJV) Deuteronomy 13
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, [b]or the wife of thy bosom[/b], or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
{bondage: Heb. bondmen}

11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

I know you speak privately to FOC as he has admitted such on another board, so I'm not surprised you would say such a thing.

Dorcas..happypromisekeeper over at family life asked me where Id been and I told him Id been posting around and made a new friend named dorcas...that was about the extent of it.

He just can't accept the fact that I came to my present viewpoint through study.

Reposting this since cindy didnt actually address the issue of her own ECF contradicting her own belief by stating that an adulterous wife DOES commit "fornication"
=======================================================
Cindy...your post did absolutely nothing in this matter.
We ALL know hermas was antiremarriage....that isnt the point at all. Apparently you missed the point.

Hermas CLEARLY states that this WIFE who is committing adultery is [b]fornicating[/b]...thereby helping to crush this error of yours where YOU say fornication is 'not adultery within a lawful marriage"
(a comment which defies even your own belief since you DO agree that betrothal IS lawful marriage)

LASTBLAST: :Just for the record again: I do not believe "porneia" is adultery within a lawful marriage and that is why I think you are having trouble understanding how I see this.

Hermas says your wrong....your own ECF....and yet you seem to still make up what you wish to in this matter.

which was my ONLY point.

=====================================================
HERMAS
On Putting One’s Wife Away for [b]Adultery[/b].
Chap. I.
...And I said to him, “Sir, if any one has a [b]wife[/b] who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in [b]adultery[/b], does the man sin if he continue to live with her?”
And he said to me, “As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her [b]fornication[/b], and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her [b]adultery[/b].”

=====================================================

Possibly, cindy, you need to REevaluate your position on fornicatoin and admit your view is errant in this matter so that we might see you are at least willing to admit when you are errant and consider the ACTUAL facts involved.

Porneia INCLUDES adultery as proven by Hermas, your dear ECF...contrary to YOUR own views that defy the actual definition of the greek word porneia (g4202)

Confusion on what God says in His Word and the infiltration of humanism in the church is why there is such diverse, confused teachings on divorce/remarriage within the confessing Body of Christ. Do you believe all the varying camps on the MDR issue are following the Word of the Lord? If so, how can that be? Could it be possible that the confusion is a result of men listening to "men" telling them what the Word of God means?

I personally think that is the case since I have had men's teachings pushed at me from pastors who could not answer my questions or the questions of my husband.

I don't mind sharing good reading materials with others, but I won't push something as truth unless I can firmly discuss it from the Word of God myself.

lastblast:"Just for the record again: I do not believe "porneia" is adultery within a lawful marriage and that is why I think you are having trouble understanding how I see this.

...especially seeing the the very ECFs you quote dont believe as much as we have seen ourselves now.

If you are wanting me to give an "out" for a wife/husband who is married to a scoundrel, I cannot do that, Dorcas. I cannot because I can't see it in scripture.

Wasnt it you, cindy, who elsewhere said that if I kill my ex that my current marriage would then be validated in Gods eyes?
Does this represent the 'spirit' of Gods word to you?
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/lastblast.html

I reference this to show that being what I believe is a legalist, that you seemingly miss the 'spirit' of Gods word/law.

God is not bound to see as valid the marriage of any man who malisciously murders his ex for the express purpose of making his current marriage 'lawful'.
.

lastblast wrote:
Foc,

I am going to publically state this because for one, I don't feel comfortable corresponding with you via PM. You need to get a grip and stop fixating on me.

if your asking me to give you a free license to state whatever you wish and not respond, that I cannot do unless you leave MDR out of your posts.

YOU choose whether or not to publically make your assertoins and risk having them refuted.
No one is picking on you or fixated on you.
If you dont want to have your doctrine scrutinized, DONT make your views public.

I've already told you that I will no longer respond to you. We have exhausted our differences and many times you are just downright disrespectful in your dialogue. It also appears to me that you are obsessed with me.

I do notice, however, that you offer nothing in relation to what Ive presented.

This is like the 3rd or 4th(maybe more) website you have tracked me down to and revived old posts in which I have contributed.

At some point I noticed these divorce threads....YOU were of no interest at first while I initially reading until I saw the same old, same old and decided to respond.

these forums from my understanding are PUBLIC access thus if you wish to remain anonymous, I suggest either not posting or using another screename

You can say what you will, but I know that you have followed me around the web. Thankfully, you have been banned from some of those websites due to your unChristlike conduct.

I'm really trying to discern your motives and I don't know if you are bored, just want someone to argue with, or what,

Its amazing to me that familylife even lets you post there given your motivation in tearing apart second marraiges if youre able...considering they dont agree with your doctrine at all.
Poor moderation over there apparently.

but the fact that you have dedicated part of your website to me, well, that's a bit over the top. It's creepy actually especially since there are many much more well known persons who hold the same viewpoint that I do.

And I quote your words...there are no nude pictures of you...so dont play like someone is being out of line. You post your doctrine publically, that gives me every right to quote you and comment.

id bet a crisp $10 bill that if old stephen wilcox did the same youd have no issue with it whatsoever....his page on my site is already there, but nothings been added yet until I cover some more of his material....

And theres FAR more there about Sealedeternal than you, cindy.
My site is to help folks who cross your doctrine...because some of you post in so many forums, it helps MY readers to see you listed by name.

What I found 'creepy' is seeing a christian say that if I murdered my ex wives that God would have to 'validate' my marriage to Laura....THAT is creepy...

I've told you I no longer want to correspond with you, so I would appreciate it if you respect that. Blessings as you seek to honor HIM, Cindy

You dont have to post your views in public sis....that is your own choice.

I do pray for your enlightenment and return to the truth everyday if that helps you understand me better...but I wont let you post your doctrine without responding...sorry....

God bless

MrBillPro wrote:

lastblast wrote:
Foc,
I don't know if you are bored, just want someone to argue with Cindy

My guess would be both of the above. :-)

Although I did think for a while it was personal. :-)

If you'll notice, Ive provided ample evidence to refute most of what cindy cliams....she gets like this each and every time shes been shown errant.

Instead of just admitting that she is probably errant in her views, say concerning 'porneia', she lashes out like her preceding post.

The reason she gets so much attention is she is the one poster who seems to be posting on so many sites....as I do myself.

I rarely see Heartmen, Stephen wilcox, 1956ford, etc on any other sites....if I did then Id do as Ive done with them as well and comment/refute.

Cindy has shown she doesnt like being proven wrong...THAT is the issue here.
*IF* it werent, then shed offer up evidence/proof to show me Im errant and Id pretty much have to let it go.

If youve seen her posts, then hopefully you see the damage her doctrine does to our brethren in second marriages who were justified in divorcing when they did.
I dont know how any knowledgable christian could sit back idly and let this doctrine tear apart marriages...i certainly have a hard time with it.

Oddly enough, its ok for cindy when SHE digs up MY personal past and tries to defame me.
Read thru the last few pages....SHE is the one who attacked me first by trying to show that because Im remarried that my witness is invalid and I am supposedly 'bitter' with my exs...something cindy has no clue as to what she is speaking about.

Additionally, there is MUCH more in the way of quotes on my site from a poster "sealedeternal" than there is lastblast.
Just look and see. She is exxagerating that I am fixated with her personally.

I am fixated soley with errant doctrine...the face that presents it is unimportant.

at this point, Id ask that we RETURN to the topic of this thread....thanks

LASTBLAST, etc.

I suggest we RETURN to the topic of this thread.

also, Id appreciate not being PMed again (you know who you are) if the PM is not going to pertain to this discussion...thanks

Scroggins wrote:
Refrence scripture and expound it.

Scroggins wrote:

Im not sure what you mean.
I was referencing an ECF when speaking to cindy...is that what you are refering to?

Not every comment by every person is directed at you. Curb the paranoia Bro. Dont worry about that one.

In Christ,
Scroggins

Hello Cindy

Dorcas,

I know you speak privately to FOC as he has admitted such on another board, so I'm not surprised you would say such a thing.

'Slowly, it is dawning on me, that you are willing to take the word of men, over the word of the Lord, whereas experience has shown many times, that He IS the Word and His word really does break open mysteries. '

is entirely my own observation.

My conversation with FOC has been to establish that both of us are using scripture as our main source of enlightenment, believing the word of God is all that is necessary to understand His heart on these matters.

Even though FOC uses my name in his posts, [i]as if[/i] we have discussed how he might respond to your points, we are [u]not[/u] collaborating behind the scenes in a material way. (I don't think either of us have time to, apart from anything else.)

By both referring to scripture, it is hardly surprising we are offering the same insight.

Further, apart from the fact he is a man and I a woman, our experiences of searching scripture for God's heart on our personal situations, is widely differing. Yet both of us have encountered a compassionate God who knows the limitations of the men and women He has made.

I will say more about this in future posts. Also, your question about killing a person who merely [i]suggests[/i] to the man of the house that they go worship false gods, I will address in full. Thank you for asking it.

lastblast wrote:

is entirely my own observation.

Fair enough, Dorcas. If it be the case, that I lift up man's teachings above God's Word, could you provide examples of me doing such? Thank you. Blessings in Him, Cindy

Jesus exception nowhere presents that He is refering ONLY to betrothal.
NOTHING in scripture even hints at this restriction.

Your manmade doctrine insists that He is without any proof whatsoever and the 'evidence' you use to support your assertions is by no means evidence for either side of the arguement...

Does that help some?

People will take this approach whenever they want to discard any Biblical directive they do not wish to obey.

Hi Cindy,

I've been musing on your last question to me, and I've come up with one of my own, which may help me to understand something more about the reason you take the stance you do.

My approach to the thought that Matthew 19:9 might be a contradiction to Jesus' other teachings, would be to try to understand HIS thinking, by using other information which is available to me [u]in scripture[/u]. ([i]Please clarify: do you say this is a contradiction to other of Jesus' words?[/i])

I accept what the Lord said, and, I believe there must be a reason for it.

So my question is this: [b]if you are right, that Jesus was alluding ONLY to the [u]divorce[/u] of an 'espoused wife', [u]why would He?[/u][/b]

I ask, because the end of the Old Covenant (and Mosaic Law, therefore), had already been announced [i]again[/i] by John the Baptist, (with his prophecy of the individual's pentecost).

Then, when speaking to the Greeks (John 12:24) Jesus refers to His death, and had already done so by His allusion to bringing sheep from another fold (John 10:16) (to make one fold of two). He later added 'Love one another' (John 15:12, 17; 17:26), while by His decease, re-defined [i]sabbath rest[/i], (Heb 4:11).

So, in the light of John 10:15 - 18 and 19:11, ('Thou couldest have [b]no[/b] power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.') and knowing [i]exactly[/i] what He was saying and would be doing through His death and resurrection, Jesus is, in decrees such as Matt 19:9, (with a little help from the Pharisees) leaving no stone unturned in giving [u]indisputable[/u] instruction for the [u]New Covenant era[/u] [b]only[/b]... isn't He?

Paul endorses the supersession of the Old Covenant with phrases such as 'especially... of the household of faith' (Gal 6:10) and 'he has denied the faith' (1 Tim 5:8) and gives a clear explanation of 'one new man' in Ephesians 2.

From Peter, we see how important he believes was the mission of the Messiah, in 2 Peter 1:15 - 21, and John underlines everything - especially the place of 'faith' in being victorious - in the last chapter of his first epistle.

The writer to the Hebrews, also, (whom Tyndale believed was Paul), explains in detail and in several different ways, that the first Covenant has been brought to an end by Jesus.

I hope the meaning of my questions is clear. If not, please ask and I'll try to do iron out the difficulty.

lastblast wrote:
I DID believe one could remarry once upon a time----BEFORE I studied this out for myself.

As for betrothal being what Jesus speaks of, as I said, I don't grab hold of that view 100% as truth. However, it is something that cannot be discounted as we have a SCRIPTURAL precedent of this occurring(Mt. 1:18-24). It's not something I made up to boost my point of view. It is there for all to see and weigh it's meaning in the larger scope of this issue.

But Cindy...we have CLEAR precedent...no.."LAW"...that shows that the punishment for WILLFUL sexual sin of the WIFE is DEATH BOTH for the espoused wife AND the consummated wife.

If GOD saw them the same, and your evidence shows nothing opposing this fact, then your evidence isnt evidence of anything that you assert.

The punishment from GODS law is the SAME for the betrothed AND the consummated wife.
NOTHING in your 'evidence' shows ANY refutatoin to this fact.

Personally, I don't know how anyone who truly desires to seek the truth on this matter can discount, without even a second thought, that this very well could be what Jesus was speaking about, since we find this "exception" ONLY in the Gospel of Matthew---a gospel aimed at JEWS who practiced the betrothal custom.

Mark 10 and Matt 19 are the one and the same event.
Matt also omits 'for every cause' as well...are you saying Matt ADDED it and it wasnt stated?
Are you saying Matt ADDED "except for harlotry" to our Lords words to appease Jewish CUSTOM ?

I also don't know how anyone in good conscience can disgard the possibility that "porneia" can very well be speaking of UNLAWFUL unions----unions that God DID NOT join together.

*IF* a man is UNLAWFULLY married to a woman, porneia would cover it.
You have yet to PROVE that I am UNLAWFULLY married to Laura after putting my wife away for harlotry.

In any case, getting back to the betrothal custom, in the other two gospels, aimed at Gentile audiences, they had no such betrothal custom, only marriage.

There we find NO exception made.

The sin of adultery is charged to ANYONE who joins hemself/herself with another unlawfully or takes another's spouse after a divorce has occurred. This teaching is NOT found in the Mosaic law. A divorce gave permission for the parties to marry another(Deut.24:1-4).

There is NO permission EVER in the OT for 'divorce' for whoredom...the punishment is death, plain and simple.

Jesus changed that to say that now a divorce did not give right to marry again, but whosoever did so would be committing adultery in His sight.

The other thing which SHOULD make one pause and consider is what I speak of all the time---WHY, if adultery gave means to a dissolvement of marriage as some suppose the Mt. 19:9 passage means----WHY did Paul use the example of an adulterous woman (remarried) in regards to the permanency of the marriage bond (death is what severs the bond and frees one to remarry). No mention of divorce on the part of the innocent party.

If, as some contend, Paul is speaking of OT Mosaic law, why use the same wording when speaking to ANOTHER Christian group (I Cor. 7:39).

You just dont get it that an exception is just that...something that defies the norm.

If Paul is speaking of Mosaic law, it was NOT adultery to remarry after a divorce. [b] I believe it is because the "law" Paul is speaking of is NOT the Mosaic law[/b], it is God's law of marriage, which Jesus speaks of in His discourse---bringing marriage back to the created intent for marriage.

DEAD to the LAW !!!!
WHAT "law" cindy?...what "law" was nailed to the Cross with our Lord? (Col 2:14)

Paul IS speaking about the Mosiac law, what you believe is irrelevant.
He is comparing the Mosiac law to this 'law of the husband'...how it is 'for life' by its very nature.

If a man apostates himself from Gods law (or Christ) what happens?
The very same thing applies to a wife who 'apostates' herself from the "law" of her husband.
Paul simply did not need to bring this into the discussion to make the point he was making....thats the extent of it.

Oddly enough, "adulteress" there in Romans 7 ALSO figuratively means "apostate"...

[b]G3428
μοιχαλίς
moichalis
Thayer Definition:
1) an adulteress
2) as the intimate alliance of God with the people of Israel was likened to a marriage, those who relapse into idolatry are said to commit adultery or play the harlot
2a) fig. equiv. to faithless to God, unclean, apostate[/b]

Hi Cindy,

First, thanks for your response, which is the the most clear (to me) as to the way you are reasoning across the [i]whole[/i] of this subject.

As to the rest of your post, I really am not understanding your point, Dorcas

So, the part of my post which you did not understand, was probably, that Jesus Himself [b]did away with the Old Covenant and the Mosaic Law[/b]. That's why the whole discussion about Him speaking to Jewish law and custom is incomprehensible, and makes no sense, not even to the natural mind, which understands that the Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant IN HIS BLOOD. 'His blood' is why I referred so many times to His death and that He knew what His death would accomplish.

In that you asked a previous question about my quote of Deuteronomy, I will come back to this.

If you read Matthew, looking at what he is actually saying (to the Jews, but [b]not only[/b] to the Jews), he's actually pointing to a series of prophecies (I know he mentions Isaiah a few times (6 - just checked)), to draw attention to the historical justification for the Christ's having had a mission to bring the [b]Gentiles[/b] in under God's blessing [b]instead of[/b] the Jews. Far from Matthew's gospel being a reframing of Jewish thinking, now under Christ, he is really telling them, they have missed the boat. Their Messiah came, and they didn't recognise Him.... which was the fulfilment of a lot of prophecy about them (the Jews) AND about the Gentiles.

There is a progression of thought through the gospels, with regard to Caesar, which is interesting. Matthew records the trick question from the Pharisees, then Mark records itm then Luke.

Luke 23:2
And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We found this [fellow] perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King."

By the time we get to John, he is exposing just [i][b]how far[/b][/i] the Jews were willing to compromise and depart from, their favoured position under God, with

John 19:12
From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, "If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar's friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar."

John 19:15
But they cried out, "Away with [Him,] away with [Him!] Crucify Him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, [b]"We have no king but Caesar!"[/b]

And so, I don't accept that Jesus, through Matthew, is giving a revision to the Mosaic Law, because there is [b]no[/b] justification for this interpretation, in the light of the rest of the New Testament. And that's a lot of New Covenant teaching, which doesn't tie in.

What they are saying is that there IS a difference between the one who DOES forgive and either is reconciled or "stands" for the wayward spouse and the person who will NOT accept back a wayward spouse.

That's because it is possible to forgive without being able to re-instate the relationship which has broken down.

Not only has God done this for us in Christ, [i]knowing[/i] that only a few will be reconciled to Him, but thousands (maybe millions) of incest survivors who find Christ, find an active reconciliation with the sex offender, (such as you claim is the only possible interpretation of scripture, with an offending spouse), is out of the question. In this, they do not fail. Simply to [i]forgive[/i] is all that's required of them.

I fully accept that a couple who were both Christians when they got married, are under a different charge, and this is workable, if both of them really ARE Christians.

\t \t
\t When is a marriage ''dissolved''

Some ask ''when is marriage dissolved"
Firstly, dont let yourself fall into the trap of when ''one flesh'' is dissolved. This is a semantics game those of the anti-remarriage camp play because they KNOW scripture speaks nothing of it. So when you cant find it, they believe theyve won the discussion.

When the union is 'dissolved' is defined clearly in Deut 24:1-4.
Jesus never altered that definition of 'divorce', He merely reigned in the allowances FOR the divorce.
When a divorce is filed for the reasons Jesus (GOD) has excepted for, THAT is when the marriage is 'dissolved'.
Nor did Jesus argue/correct the pharisees 'interpretation' of Deut 24:1-4 being 'for any cause'.
He merely stated 'why' Moses had given the allowance to begin with.
Moses had permitted them to put their wives away 'for any cause' because 'she find no favor in his eyes' simply over their hard hearts.
Moses chose to go with the lesser of the 2 evils....easy divorce or a tortured innocent wife...to deal with a problem that was out of control.

The fact is, as is proven by 1 Corinthian 6:16, that ''one flesh'' is nothing more than a man being one body with a woman, whether she is his wife or not. This is proven by Pauls even quoting our Lords words in 6:16 there to show it IS the same.

When God created Adam and Eve, He created them in manner so as they could be come ''one flesh'' or one body (aka 'sex'). So when you see this reference, consummation between the two is all that is being shown.

When we marry someone, or in the customs of the Jews when betrothed or contracted in marriage, we eniter Gods holy union. For the Jews, they did it a bit differently. A virgin was given a year at home with her family after being contracted in this union, but make no mistake, she WAS the lawful bride of her husband as is shown in Deut 22 where she would have been brutally killed for sexual sins just as if she were fully married and consummated.
Once this union was contracted, she WAS married for all religious and legal purposes.

And yet, she was not yet ''one flesh'' with her husband. That happens when the marriage ceremony is over, and he takes her to his bed and they consummate their union.
A man is also 'one flesh' or 'one body' with a harlot he is with (1 Cor 6:16) showing that 'one flesh' is not exclusive to the marriage union.

When we look at divorce in Matt 19, we see that the pharisees were askng Jesus if they were permitted to divorce ''for any cause'', something they had grown used to over the centuries.
Jesus response is to tell them that from the beginning it wasnt so....God had created them male and female, the husband would leave parents and cleave to his wife. They become ''one flesh'' together and what God Himself has put together, man should not tear down.

They ask Jesus why then Moses had permitted them to do so.
He tells them its because their hearts were hard. (Do a study on the matter and youll see what Jesus meant, these Jew who asked Him these things were very vile, wicked men who tormented thier innocent wives many times)

He tells them whoever puts her away now for any reason short of fornication, commits adultery when he remarries as she does as well, because God doesnt have to accept a divorce just becuase we file it.
If its not for this fornication, then sorry, its not valid and you DO commit adultery by remarrying.

This 'dissolving' of a marriage occurs very simply, when one party has broken the covenant with sexual sin and the innocent party decided to officially end it just as God finally ended His covenant with Isreal that He made with their fathers our of Egypt.

They did not keep His covenant, and He tolerated thier sins for a long time, but fully and finally He put that covenant away publically so as to not make any mistakes about it (see Zech speaking about His covenant ending)

The plain fact is that *IF* a marriage was not ''dissolved'' and ''one flesh'' kept the union intact, then Moses was kidding himself when he wrote Deut 24:1-4 as NOTHING he could have permitted would have broken this supposed indestrucible ''one flesh'' bond created in the beginning.

In essence Moses would have been condemning to eternal torment anyone who he permitted to divorce in this manner as they would still have been ''one flesh'' with their first spouse based on what anti-remarriagers show as being some eternal, UNbreakable 'one flesh' bond creaded by God from the beginning. This supposed perpetual ''one flesh'' bond would have still been intact while they were married to another and thus living IN adultery. The same thing many try to assert today.

Surely Moses allowed for easy putting away, but divorce it was, it ENDED the covenant, as ALL divorce does when scripture allows for it, as in Jesus' exception.

Moses even allowing putting away at all for ANY reason shows that there ARE cases that can be permitted to end a covenant without the death of one party.

Now, surely it was for hardness of hearts in the case of those Jews Moses permitted as we can see the condition of their hearts all throughout the OT. These same Jews are the types that are asking Jesus ''can we divorce for ANY cause'' as Moses had to permit to keep the wife safe.

If Moses was permitted to allow divorce simply because ''she find no favor in his eyes'', then surely the Lord who created us all has the AUTHORITY to narrow that to sexual sin alone as shown by His own exception.

There is no magic thread attaching a man to a woman called ''one flesh''.
One flesh is a sexual relationship between a man and woman, married or not, as proven in 1 Cor, 6:16. A man and wife are ''one flesh'' just as God created them to be when they consummate thier union and are literally 'one flesh' thru they subsequent sexual relationship because they are 'male and female' as He has made them.

When God joins two people in HIs union, it is done as soon as the two have agreed to marry and are contracted in whatever manner is acceptable to both of them.
The jews had their customs, as do all peoples in the world, and most are different, but all are equally valid.
Isaac and Rebekah had no betrothal at all...she agreed to be his wife, she went immediatly to him and became just that.

When one has broken the covenant in a manner that Jesus or Paul permits, then divorce is filed publically to show the world our intent, that is when marriage is ''dissolved'' . ..'one flesh' becomes a moot point as these two are no longer under a covenant together over sins JESUS Himself has excepted.

Dont let yourselves be drawn into semantics games my brethren. Stick to the facts. Gods word is very easy to understand, theres just a LOT to it.

===============================================================================
A response to a forum poster

lastblast:
Nowhere do we read where Paul ever gives any indication that a marriage is dissolved, with the freedom to marry again, ..............
Nowhere does he teach that adultery dissolves. Nowhere does he teach that a remarriage dissolves the previous marriage. Nowhere does he teach that a divorce dissolves...............
In Him, Cindy

response by FOC:
cindy, youre being outright deceptive in this matter.

Deut 24:1-4, a CLEAR passage that shows the meaning of 'divorce', shows EXACTLY what happens to the marriage when a man 'divorces' his wife....she is NO LONGER his WIFE !
THERE is your 'dissolved'...
Jesus did NOT REdefine 'divorce/putting away'.
He clearly stated that ONLY in a case of whoredom can one do so and remarry without committing adultery.

What is painfully clear here is that you arent studied in this matter whatsoever.
Otherwise youd have known that 'divorce/putting away' doesnt need to be DEFINED again in the NT...Moses already did that.
"Divorce" is 'putting away' with the written proof that Moses required in Deut 24.
Jesus didnt alter that meaning...nor the meaning of 'putting away'.
All He did was do away with the allowance for frivolous divorce (for any cause) that Moses had permitted.
So as I said, your semantics game is apparent to all...

HOME \t
1

lastblast,

I have stated before that Im on disability and my bills have accumulated over time that I cannot pay.
Bill collectors have been calling, and because the debt is so high, they want way more than I can even afford in payments.

Cindy...You have stated numerous times in many places that we are all CALLED to obey God---whether we want to or not.

Your Lord has said this and you are CALLED to obey..whether you WANT to or not....

[b]"Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away"
(Mat 5:42)
[/b]
Im ASKING you for some financial help in this matter.

Now....are you going to follow the direction, the command of your Lord.....

or will you prove yourself a hypocrit who puts the yoke upon the backs of OTHERS, then excuse yourself from any laws you yourself dont want to adhere to?

FOC said:

Oddly enough, "adulteress" there in Romans 7 ALSO figuratively means "apostate"...

G3428
μοιχαλίς
moichalis
Thayer Definition:
1) an adulteress
2) as the intimate alliance of God with the people of Israel was likened to a marriage, those who relapse into idolatry are said to commit adultery or play the harlot
2a) fig. equiv. to faithless to God, unclean, apostate

I know from my other studies of related topics, that there is a consistency across God's word, which reflects again and again, His thought and heart. I've come to view it in my mind's eye, as a globe, within which all the points on the surface of the globe connect across to each other, internally, and at peace with each other. If my idea doesn't fit His wider scheme, then it is I, not He, who makes the adjustment.

Cindy, I noticed you refer to [b]spiritual adultery[/b]. I'd be very interested in your definition of that.

So far, you have not given a definition of either adultery, or fornication, which is able to be applied with the simple consistency which it appears in scripture.

I'm also interested in the phrase, because a few posts ago you were saying you think I over-spiritualise virgintiy. I realise this is not quite the same as a [i]concept[/i] of [b]spiritual virginity[/b] but they are very close.

I'm not sure how you can know what spiritual adultery IS, if you are not clear about spiritual virginity, and whether, if one loses one's spiritual virginity, it can ever be regained?

lasatblast..

Since you refuse, as usual, to deal with being proven errant, I guess I will simply just respond to your posts.

btw, ignoring a refutation doesnt nullify it.
You WERE proven errant...again...Paul IS speaking about Mosiac Law in Romans 7.

additionally..

The problem is the church is pointing outward saying God did not join THOSE marriages, yet feels that God DOES join those unions He calls adultery.

YOU call these adultery...GOD does not.

t's an interesting thing to see that history has repeated itself. The Lord rebuked the Pharisees for coming against those who committed adultery when they themselves were guilty of the very same thing(yet they couldn't see it either)..

dorcas wrote:

FOC said:

Oddly enough, "adulteress" there in Romans 7 ALSO figuratively means "apostate"...

G3428
μοιχαλίς
moichalis
Thayer Definition:
1) an adulteress
2) as the intimate alliance of God with the people of Israel was likened to a marriage, those who relapse into idolatry are said to commit adultery or play the harlot
2a) fig. equiv. to faithless to God, unclean, apostate

This is new to me. How interesting.

You see how Ivw proven in this thread that Romans 7 IS refering to Mosiac law....but you can bet your buttons cindy not only wont admit it or accept it, but keep you eye on her posts, she'll be repeating the same exact thing at some point, that Paul supposedly ISNT comparing the Mosiac 'Law' to this 'law of the husband'.
Denial is a powerful thing...

If my idea doesn't fit His wider scheme, then it is I, not He, who makes the adjustment.

The true student will ALWAYs adjust his views to fit new information when that data is shown to be true.

lastblast wrote:

I think it's kinda ironic that some who believe one can lose their salvation think it ok to remain in adulterous marriages---

There are many interesting things to ponder when one scratches beneath the surface concerning this issue of remarriage=adultery. Blessings in Him, Cindy

You know full well how much time Ive invested in this discussion cindy....hardly 'scratching' beneath the surface.

Not a single one of your assertoins has gone unrefuted by myself and others who have dug deeply enough to understand that 'except for whoredom' means precisely what it clearly states

As for definitions of adultery/fornication, I think the Strong's on those words and greek lexicons have already been posted, no? [b]I am not at odds with those definitions.[/b] Blessings in Him, Cindy

[b]G4202
πορνεία
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
[/b]

You, yourself, admitted that you dont believe fornication (porneia, g4202) is 'adultery' within a lawful marriage....thus you ARE at odds with the Strongs....and MANY other dictionaries and scholars...including your dear Hermas, ECF.

readers see...
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/adulteryisfornication.html

Did Jesus say ''wife'' or "espoused" wife

In His exception clause, Jesus is clearly refering to a lawful wife. If Jesus had been only refering to the betrothal period in the exception clause, He would have used the very term used for Mary at times...."espoused wife'' or ''espoused'' (see G3423) in His exception clause.
*IF* He were restricting His exception to the betrothal period, there is no reason to believe that our Lord would have been so vague about it.
The fact is NOTHING presented in scripture backs this silly assertion by some who say that Jesus only meant to except the betrothed wife.
This is all deceptive propaganda created to further a false doctrine... this idea does not come from Gods word.

Jesus clearly used the word that means ''wife'' or woman. A mans woman was his wife. She was his lawful wife from the moment the marriage was contracted. The betrothed wife was a lawful wife.
Jesus being a Jew and being God, knew this.
When He said ''wife'' He was refering to whoredom of a wife, pre or post consummation.
(compare Matt 19.9 and 5:32 with Luke 2:5)

Conclusion:
Jesus could have said "espoused' or 'betrothed' ("mne?steuo?" as is used for Mary) in His exception, yet He chose to use the normal word for a 'wife'(gune?) in Matthew 19.
If Jesus WAS discerning one OVER the other, His ACTUAL words would be pertaining to the consummated wife and not the betrothed at all.

But seeing that the betrothed wife was lawfully contracted in marriage, she was just as much a 'wife' for legal and religious reasons as the consummated wife.

Hi Cindy,

I'm not planning to quote the Matthew 19 verses again, but, I want to say this, which has just occurred to me.

When Jesus said 'Moses suffered ...' them to put away their wives 'for every cause' because of the hardness of mens hearts, by [b]excluding[/b] divorce for fornication (porneia), He was (by simple logic) also [u]vindicating a faithful spouse from hardness of heart[/u] for that divorce..... because, ONLY those who divorced their spouse 'for every cause', were guilty of 'hardness of heart'.

The spouse with the hardness of heart, in that case, is the spouse who committed porneia - that is, the spouse who not only committed adultery in her or his heart and mind, but put it into action.

This is another reason the faithful spouse is free from guilt.

You know, it strikes me as strange that you not only want as system where one spouse goes so far as to actually commit adultery, and then, that person is to EXPECT, having broken the most serious flesh covenant they can make during their lifetime, that the person they have deserted and betrayed is BOUND to WAIT, until THEY are in the mood to repent.

Not even God does this for ever. EDIT It is a Divine attribute that He waits as long as He does, when He could simply have walked away from us all. EDIT end

In the earlier quote you made from Peter, the operative verb is WILLING. Of course GOD is not [i][b]willing[/b][/i] that any should perish. He believes He has done enough in Jesus to prevent that. But, this knowledge / information, has to be balanced again the Lord's own prophecies about few finding the narrow gate, and the way to destruction being broad.

Also, that HE said, there would be publicans and harlots going into the kingdom of God (Matt 21).

The [i]whole[/i] counsel of scripture has to be included in our analysis.

The simple person understands Jesus words as recorded in Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18 (15-18)as simply meaning that if a person remarries after divorcing his/her spouse commits adultry.

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/25.html

If you were to accept the directive given by Jesus in Mark 10:11-12: 11: And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

...and now for the rest of the story....

"And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, [b]if not for whoredom[/b], and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.'
Mat 19:9

but I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, [b]save for the matter of whoredom[/b], doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.

(Mat 5:32)

In v. 16 Jesus is plainly saying he is issuing a NEW directive: the Old Testament law was until John and NOW the kingdom of heaven is being preached and EVERYONE is pressed into it, meaning HE has the last word on this issue.

A state where she actually has to break the covenant to be put away.

Its amazing how many folks I see who cannot seem to grasp the fact that this 'hardheartedness" Jesus speaks of was concerning the manner in which these Jewish men were treating their wives.
It has nothing to do with putting her away for playing the harlot, but doing so 'for EVERY cause' ....

and Jesus 'last word' includes 'EXCEPT for fornication' (whoredom)...which even the ECF Hermas knows is within a LAWFUL marriage.

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/adulteryisfornication.html

who ARE convicted they are living in a state of perpetual adultery

I know I've lifted these words of yours out of the context of a second marriage which [i]you[/i] say others feel convicted of, as adulterous.....

From my own experience of feeling guilty (and I have LONG experience of feeling guilty!) I know it is possible to live under a sense of condemnation which is [i]nothing[/i] to do with [u]conviction for sin[/u], and everything to do with [i]someone else's guilt[/i], which that person has imparted while (that other person was) sinning against them (me).

Men [i]and[/i] women can have the foundation laid for an [i]aptitude[/i] to carry someone else's guilty conscience, way back in their childhood. My repeated testimonies of healing, allude non-verbally to the layers which God has brought to my attention, of emotional injury which continue(d) to damage my soul, until they are / were addressed.

I don't dispute some real guilt may belong to the person feeling it, (eg me) but (I have found that) that too, may be [i]only[/i] historical rather than related to my / their current situation.

Guilt is [i]intended[/i] to be [u]deeply[/u] disturbing, [i]because[/i] it has the happy potential to turn us to seeking God over parts of our lives which have never received, or need again, to receive His touch. However, a sense of guilt can lay us open to using our mental, rather than our spiritual perception, to consider how we may have sinned. There is a considerable mystery in one's soul, when one goes on and on feeling condemned, but without any immediate understanding of [i]why[/i], or obvious reason for it. Of course, the Adversary is night and day accusing us to the Father, so it's important to be sure of our ground in Christ [u]first[/u]. I have been tremendously blessed this week by Patrick's testimony here.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=10719&forum=44&18

"for the last at least six months, I have had no joy, no peace, no holiness. I struggled with lust, with the praise of man, bitterness, envy, gossip, oh you name it and it was there before me and God.

It had gotten to the place where I was very dry, withered I would say. I could barely pray, I could not really read the Scriptures,yet I went on every Sunday preaching to people about hoe to live above these things. Yes I was a hypocrite, and I carried this guilt day by day. It affected how I interracted with my wife, and with everyone else. I was putting on a show basically, a show of learned behaviour that I learned from reading good books and listening to good sermons, yet I was miserable.

Today, oh about 10 minutes ago, I know for certain that I received Christ and His Spirit. My heart is clean, and I have been crucified with Him. It is more than a feeling, it is like a deep truth in me, I know that I am in the vine now!!!!

All this is to say that we cannot toy with sin, and walk with God when He is so willing and ablee to cleanse us. Oh let us labour to enter into His rest.
Hallelujah!!!!"

contd.

Because Jesus and Paul speak so strongly about God's attitude to adultery - and fornication etc - and their being sufficient to exclude one from the kingdom of God [u]forever[/u], the phrase 'perpetual adultery', has the potential to strike genuine fear of damnation into hearts.

Yet even Paul, when exhorting believers to depart from adultery and fornication, never uses the phrase 'perpetual adultery', as if it is a sin from which one can never be free, forgiven or healed. It conveys a hideous spectre of perpetual bondage - of sin from which one can never get free.... and that image [u]is a lie[/u].

If one is not clear as to the [i]source[/i] of one's guilt before God, I can see - and know from experience of concern for my own salvation - that to avoid marital happiness might present itself as a first step to ruling out adultery as a source of inevitable damnation.

It would be ideal if no-one could get married until they had a completely clean conscience before God, but, there are many reasons this may not be possible, except within the acknowledgement of the efficacy of the blood of Christ through the Spirit, to present one faultless before the Father's throne.

[i]Experiencing[/i] the benefit of His work in our lives, at the [u]tangible[/u] level of our soul through healing, may take much longer than anyone would like. But, it is good to move in that direction. It is much better to allow His blessing to infiltrate our deepest understanding, than to juggle the prestentation of our exterior life eg

(NKJV) 1 Timothy 4
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Lastly, I would draw attention to the state of heart which IS in perpetual adultery.... having nothing to do with the outward appearance of departing from the marriage bed. Is not [u]this[/u] marriage bed [u]as defiled as that of the adulterer who commits the outward act[/u]?

Matthew 5:28
But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Obviously, this is as applicable to women, as men.

dorcas"
"From my own experience of feeling guilty (and I have LONG experience of feeling guilty!) I know it is possible to live under a sense of condemnation which is nothing to do with conviction for sin, and everything to do with someone else's guilt, which that person has imparted while (that other person was) sinning against them (me).

and

"Because Jesus and Paul speak so strongly about God's attitude to adultery - and fornication etc - and their being sufficient to exclude one from the kingdom of God forever, the phrase 'perpetual adultery', has the potential to strike genuine fear of damnation into hearts.

What lastblast and their group does is to prey on the less studied.
Youll notice they get far less recruits than those who walk away from them because when they try these scare tactics with folks, MANY christians are able to read the scriptures, clearly see that Jesus said 'except for fornication' and easily see that this fornication CANNOT and IS NOT restricted to Jewish betrothal custom (Acts 15 alone refutes this nonsense wholesale)

There are a few tho, that they do manipulate and scare the dickens out of, those who only take the study so far, scratching the surface as it has been stated, whom then become scared of hell, who end up feeling this so called "conviction" and doing what 56ford did and put away a spouse unlawfully.

They work on folks fears of hell and of disobeying God, which when the teaching is correct is productive....but when its a hellspawned lie is destructive to marriages God Himself has made exception for.

ginnyrose wrote:
FOC,

I do not know what Bible you are using.

Matthew 19:9 reads differently then what you posted: "And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.' Mat 19:9.

The KJV says: "9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

The NASB says: "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries anorther woman commits adultery."

[b] These scripturesd clearly say remarrying after a divorce is committing adultery. Simple. Why complicate a simple matter?
[/b]

Your NASB clearly states "EXCEPT FOR immorality"....YOU make that anything less that what it plainly means.

The KJV says fornication...fornication is ANY sexual immorality/sin committed by anyone, married or not.
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/adulteryisfornication.html
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/fornicationnotonlyduringbetrothal.html
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/11.html

Do you want me to start REposting everything again, or will you simply take a moment to READ whats been posted in this thread?

Why DO you folks "complicate" this very SIMPLE matter?
Jesus said "except for forncatoin/whoredom/harlotry/sexual immorality"....you dont have to like it, but if you were studied, youd surely have to admit it.

Quote
Really?
because Jesus sure seems to be saying 'from the BEGINING it wasnt this way.
Sounds more like Hes returning them to a pre-"for every cause" state to me.

Are you saying Jesus does not have the authority to change the 'law'? Let me ask you another question: do you think Jesus was/is the Jehovah God?

ginnyrose

What is "new" in this testamant, is that forgiveness is offered the adulterer (go and sin no more)...instead of being stoned to death as Deut 22 and Leviticus required.
That in no way nullifies the exception to the rule..

EVERY sin can be repented of Dorcas. The only sin that cannot be repented of is one that is embraced and will not be forsaken.

When Paul speak of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, it is in regards to those who love their sin MORE than God and that sin is who they are. It is not a one time "oops" I missed the mark. It is the refusal to turn from one's own life/flesh and turn to the Living God who absolutely CAN and DOES give a heart to forsake sin to those who LOVE Him.

Do you quote this to people who come against homosexual marriage, Dorcas? It's interesting that this passage frequently comes up against those who speak against adulterous remarriage, but noone would dare use this passage against those who speak against gay marriage. That is because we KNOW homosexual marriage is WRONG due to the scriptures on homosexual activity---if the activity itself is wrong, surely a marriage including such activity must be wrong as well. It those cases it is OK to prohibit marriage, is it not?

Equally, and even more so, we know adultery is wrong and we do have scripture which speaks not only against adultery, but against adulterous marriages as well. If that be the case, do you think it ok to prohibit marriage for homosexuals, but allow marriages Jesus calls adultery? Is either type of marriage acceptable to the Lord?

There WERE remarried divorcees IN the church and IN fellowship...that is a fact that ANY historical study will show.

When the corinthian man WAS considered to be 'living in fornication'(1 cor 5) Paul made a BIG stink about it had him REMOVED from the church....yet we see not ONE SINGLE person being removed who was a remarried while this former spouse lived.

and we KNOW that remarried divorcees were a HUGE issue with the early church....far more than these imaginary gay marriages of yours.

Paul CLEARLY has the ONE case of actual sexual sin in the church REMOVED...then says NOTHING concerning removing these YOU claim are living in perpetual sin supposedly as the man in 1 cor 5.

Men with men has ALWAYS been abomination.

And we see that there were, again, those of more than one wife clearly being in fellowship, yet restricted from being considered for bishop.

=========================================================

\t \t
\t Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church

Evidences that there were divorcees who had remarried in the church are found in the list of widows and the requirements for bishops.

>-1Tim 5:9 Do not let a widow be enrolled having become less than sixty years old, the wife of one man,
>-Titus 1:6 if anyone is blameless, husband of one wife, having believing children, not accused of loose behavior, or disobedient.
>-1Tim 3:2 Then it behooves the overseer to be without reproach, husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, well-ordered, hospitable, apt at teaching,

Wife of one man

This requirement clearly is not speaking of a woman who had a man-harem.
There is no real issue of women marrying multiple husbands given in the bible nor in historical accounts.
This leaves either the remarried widow, or the remarried divorcee.
It cannot be a remarried widow as no law forbad the widow to remarry. Paul even tells widows

"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(1Co 7:8-9 KJV)

Paul would be setting these widows up to be rejected from this list later if she did remarry.
Also, Paul even insists that younger widows REmarry here...

But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
(1Ti 5:11-14 KJV)

He absolutely would be condemning this woman in later years to be rejected the churches help by forcing her to remarry now.
We know Paul was not so callous and uncaring by his instruction for the helping of widows he gave.

The ONLY possibility for this "wife of one man" is that she was divorced and remarried.
That is the ONLY possibility from scripture.
It is the only thing that is clearly corrected in Gods word.

and yet this woman is still in fellowship...not being cast out of the assembly such as the man who had his fathers wife and WAS living in fornication.

Her life was not exemplary, so she couldnt be added to the list of widows, but she WAS in the church and in fellowship.

The requisite for her to have been the wife of ONE man CLEARLY indicates that she COULD have been the wife of more than one husband in her lifetime....aka a remarried divorcee...a direct contradictoin to this lying doctrine that says second marriages arent marriages but 'affairs'...

husband of one wife

We see here that these are requirements of those in higher positions in the church..folks who are to set the EXAMPLE for the rest to follow.
We will discuss the possible meanings here of ''husband of one wife''

It cannot refer to those who are widowed. as the remarried widow(er) was not prohibited or restricted in any manner I have seen, Paul even recommends that younger widows remarry. Paul would be purposefully making it impossible for a woman to later to be accepted to this list of widows for no good reason if he were speaking the remarried widow in 1 tim 5:9 above instead of a remarried divorcee.

To provide evidence from GODS word, lets see this..
"one ruling his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence;
for if one does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? "
(1Ti 3:4-5 EMTV)

This clearly shows that this man must be one who can maintain his own household, even the obedience of his children. A man whos been divorced and remarried MAY not be the best person for this job.

It is very unlikely that it ONLY speaks to polygamists as there is nothing in the NT that clearly condemns the act and Ive not found that the practice was as rampant as some try to assert...I suggest you do your own study to see if Im right or wrong.

We must see in scipture what meaning to put to this phrase 'husband of one wife'

Of all the possibilities, ONLY divorce and remarriage is corrected clearly in scripture. We can assume that frivolous divorce and remarriage would immediately bar one from the prominent position of bishop.
But Paul makes no distinction, so we must assume that he also means those who divorced an adulteress then remarried as well (just to be on the safe side). Showing that these, although not the most prominent persons, were indeed still in fellowship with the rest of our brethren.

Some will state that this have put away these second marriages, but what I find very peculiar is that, if this matter were so crucial to salvation, Paul should surely have made a point of it. "Only if these second wives have been put away''. The way its left, it sounds very much like they could have still been with the person.

Another issue is that those of the anti-remarriage camp state that this second "marriage" is not a marriage at all, but an adulterous affair.
The clear implication above is that the second marriage is a recognized one, if it weren't, then Paul would have simply called these people adulterers and surely they wouldnt even be in fellowship. Let alone being considered for the position of Bishop.

It is also notable that Paul nowhere states that these second marriages were invalid, nor does he state that these people were to have left this second spouse. In fact, in 1 cor 7 Paul tells these frivolously parted from their spouse to ''remain UNmarried or reconcile........"...showing that REmarriage is quite possible indeed even if wrong to do.

Some folks will use a preposterous example of Paul also not telling gays to separate (or some other irrelevant distraction), but Jesus offered NO exception to gay couples, did He ? His exception is clearly speaking of a MAN and a WOMAN...and husband and a wife when He made His exception for sexual sin.

lastblast wrote:
Dorcas,

If you go back and read the dialogue in Mt. 19 you will see that first the Pharisees asked Jesus if they could put away a wife for ANY cause. Jesus then spoke of the creation intent of marriage---that once a couple is joined by God, they are now 1 flesh with His command for man not to separate.

And 'one flesh' is NOT the union as proven by 1 Cor 6:16....it is the sexual aspect of a male/female relatoinship as proven, again, by 1 cor 6:16.

[b]Or do you not know that he being joined to a harlot is one body? For He says, "The two shall be into one flesh."
(1Co 6:16)
[/b]

This couple is joined by God in marriage, the sexual relatoinship (one flesh) is created when they partake in a physical relationhship.

[b]Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh.
(Gen 2:24)
[/b]

Paul clearly shows that "one flesh" is the SAME act with the married couple as with a harlot in 1 Cor 6:16.
It is an 'act' that was created for marriage....outside of marriage it is sin...whoredom.

and they were asking about "for EVERY cause" divorce as Moses had been permitting them to do to protect the innocent wife from these animalistic men.

THEN they came back and brought Moses into it, asking why, if divorce is not ok, did Moses command a certificate of divorce be given. Jesus then goes on to say that this was done ONLY for the reason of man's hardheartedness.

Can you find a Mosaic law BY MOSES for divorce "for any cause" in scripture? I can't.

Duet 22 CLEALY gives the rules for sexual sin.
Deut 24 given just days later shows that the man is the one who defines this 'uncleanness' because HE has found some 'uncleanness' in her.
Just as Moses permitted to make it so the man could simply end the marriage so that he wouldnt hurt or kill this wife to be rid of her.

What IS clear to us is that Jesus in a few cases tells the Jews when they 'err'....yet Jesus makes no correction for their understanding pertaining to deut 24:1-4 and it being 'for EVERY cause"
Very odd *IF* the Jews were interpreting it incorrectly.

All I can find is Deut. 24, so it appears to me that THIS writing is what Jesus is talking about-----

As usual though, even this ONE "allowance" given for the hardheartedness of man was perverted and expanded upon to now include "for ANY cause" (meaning it perverted to mean that it was up to man's discretion to decide what "unclean" meant to THEM).

Again...What IS clear to us is that Jesus in a few cases tells the Jews when they 'err'....yet Jesus makes no correction for their understanding pertaining to deut 24:1-4 and it being 'for EVERY cause"
Very odd *IF* the Jews were interpreting it incorrectly.

SEXUAL sins were ALREADY covered just days before in Deut 22.
Deut 24 clearly presents a scenario where the man is determining what this 'uncleaness' is.
Precisely what Moses had permitted to protect this wife...better to have her free than dead or hurt.

That sounds awfully familiar to what people do with the so called "exception" clause.

"You cannot divorce and marry another, EXCEPT for whoredom, or you commit adultery" sounds pretty clear to those who can read.

lastblast:
Every person I know who teaches adamantly that adultery "can" dissolve a marriage, does not believe that adultery is the ONLY reason----they now expand that definition to include many things OUTSIDE sexual infidelity. This generation is very MUCH like the Pharisees in that regard from what I see.

To keep from having to determine who is sinning and who is not..so we dont have to actually do any work..lets simply REJECT Jesus' exception and Pauls concessoin and condemn EVERYONE who is remarried....that way we dont have to invest any of our precious time in this at all.

Cindy....can I expect you to simply ignore my refutations to your assertions?

lastblast wrote:
I DID believe one could remarry once upon a time----BEFORE I studied this out for myself.

As for betrothal being what Jesus speaks of, as I said, I don't grab hold of that view 100% as truth. However, it is something that cannot be discounted as we have a SCRIPTURAL precedent of this occurring(Mt. 1:18-24). It's not something I made up to boost my point of view. It is there for all to see and weigh it's meaning in the larger scope of this issue.

But Cindy...we have CLEAR precedent...no.."LAW"...that shows that the punishment for WILLFUL sexual sin of the WIFE is DEATH BOTH for the espoused wife AND the consummated wife.

If GOD saw them the same, and your evidence shows nothing opposing this fact, then your evidence isnt evidence of anything that you assert.

The punishment from GODS law is the SAME for the betrothed AND the consummated wife.
NOTHING in your 'evidence' shows ANY refutatoin to this fact.

Personally, I don't know how anyone who truly desires to seek the truth on this matter can discount, without even a second thought, that this very well could be what Jesus was speaking about, since we find this "exception" ONLY in the Gospel of Matthew---a gospel aimed at JEWS who practiced the betrothal custom.

Mark 10 and Matt 19 are the one and the same event.
Matt also omits 'for every cause' as well...are you saying Matt ADDED it and it wasnt stated?
Are you saying Matt ADDED "except for harlotry" to our Lords words to appease Jewish CUSTOM ?

I also don't know how anyone in good conscience can disgard the possibility that "porneia" can very well be speaking of UNLAWFUL unions----unions that God DID NOT join together.

*IF* a man is UNLAWFULLY married to a woman, porneia would cover it.
You have yet to PROVE that I am UNLAWFULLY married to Laura after putting my wife away for harlotry.

In any case, getting back to the betrothal custom, in the other two gospels, aimed at Gentile audiences, they had no such betrothal custom, only marriage.

There we find NO exception made.

The sin of adultery is charged to ANYONE who joins hemself/herself with another unlawfully or takes another's spouse after a divorce has occurred. This teaching is NOT found in the Mosaic law. A divorce gave permission for the parties to marry another(Deut.24:1-4).

There is NO permission EVER in the OT for 'divorce' for whoredom...the punishment is death, plain and simple.

Jesus changed that to say that now a divorce did not give right to marry again, but whosoever did so would be committing adultery in His sight.

The other thing which SHOULD make one pause and consider is what I speak of all the time---WHY, if adultery gave means to a dissolvement of marriage as some suppose the Mt. 19:9 passage means----WHY did Paul use the example of an adulterous woman (remarried) in regards to the permanency of the marriage bond (death is what severs the bond and frees one to remarry). No mention of divorce on the part of the innocent party.

If, as some contend, Paul is speaking of OT Mosaic law, why use the same wording when speaking to ANOTHER Christian group (I Cor. 7:39).

You just dont get it that an exception is just that...something that defies the norm.

If Paul is speaking of Mosaic law, it was NOT adultery to remarry after a divorce. [b] I believe it is because the "law" Paul is speaking of is NOT the Mosaic law[/b], it is God's law of marriage, which Jesus speaks of in His discourse---bringing marriage back to the created intent for marriage.

DEAD to the LAW !!!!
WHAT "law" cindy?...what "law" was nailed to the Cross with our Lord? (Col 2:14)

Paul IS speaking about the Mosiac law, what you believe is irrelevant.
He is comparing the Mosiac law to this 'law of the husband'...how it is 'for life' by its very nature.

If a man apostates himself from Gods law (or Christ) what happens?
The very same thing applies to a wife who 'apostates' herself from the "law" of her husband.
Paul simply did not need to bring this into the discussion to make the point he was making....thats the extent of it.

Oddly enough, "adulteress" there in Romans 7 ALSO figuratively means "apostate"...

[b]G3428
μοιχαλίς
moichalis
Thayer Definition:
1) an adulteress
2) as the intimate alliance of God with the people of Israel was likened to a marriage, those who relapse into idolatry are said to commit adultery or play the harlot
2a) fig. equiv. to faithless to God, unclean, apostate[/b]

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/6.html

I suggest you learn to apply ALL relevant scripture to this matter.