Divorce and Remarriage - does God allow it?

[follower of Christ]

Purely and simply because the Bible says that remarriage is adultery.

.

wrong.
Marriage is a conditional covenant.
Jesus proves this has not changed when He says ''EXCEPT for whoredom"

 

[von]

Well, I have one question for you, well maybe two? Why would Herod and Herodius have to abide by the law?

Since marriage is not a vow unto God that He says No man is to break then I don't have to turn from any other sin I commit either, right? Why is it that churches teach that you must repent, (turn away from sin), just not that sin? Why is that the only sin I can hang on to?

 

[follower of Christ]

Well, I have one question for you, well maybe two? Why would Herod and Herodius have to abide by the law?

She wasnt lawfully divorced.
She ''divorced'' without scriptural cause.
She was his niece, close kin.

Jesus hadnt taught yet, they only knew the law at this point.
John did NOT come preaching things that Jesus had not even yet said.

Herod and Herodias were in direct violation of at least 2 Levitical laws.
THAT is what John accused them with.

Since marriage is not a vow unto God that He says No man is to break then I don't have to turn from any other sin I commit either, right? Why is it that churches teach that you must repent, (turn away from sin), just not that sin? Why is that the only sin I can hang on to?

Nice try.
Did you READ my post before, or just see that I disagreed and start posting?
Marriage is a CONDITIONAL covenant.

Jesus returned those conditions back to their original state, for whoredom alone can we divorce and remarry.

And He says ''let no man put asunder'', nowhere is it stated that man CANNOT break the marriage covenant.
It is broken the second someone has sex with another.
Just as it has always been.
We just dont put those folks to death like we used to .

Its the only ''sin'' you can hang on to becuase in the case of sexual sin, it ISNT a sin to divorce or remarry.

 

[Delicate]

It is imperative to remember that in Lk. 16:18, Mk 10:10-12, Jesus abrogated the law of Moses in the issue of remarrige after divorce.

In so doing, by HIS authority, He taught the standard that all future remarriage after divorce will be judged by, stating that remarriage after divorce IS ADULTRY. Pretty plain...

 

[follower of Christ]

It is imperative to remember that in Lk. 16:18, Mk 10:10-12, Jesus abrogated the law of Moses in the issue of remarrige after divorce. .

In so doing, by HIS authority, He taught the standard that all future remarriage after divorce will be judged by, stating that remarriage after divorce IS ADULTRY. Pretty plain...

Jesus, by HIS authority, stated the following...

but I--I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.
(Mat 5:32)

`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)



Sorry, HIS authority isnt just in the books you like.
We find the truth in ALL of the gospels, not just one or two.

There is an exception clause, sorry, but everyone basically has no choice but to accept that.

Jesus has permitted ''putting away'' for ''porneia''.

-FACT: We all accept the exception clause.
-FACT: We all know its dealing with sexual sin by a person we have entered into a marital covenant with.
-FACT: Jesus does not show divorce and remarriage as adultery when this ''porneia'' has been commited.
-FACT: ''Porneia'' is all inclusive of every sexual sin and alludes to much more than just sexual sin (which is most likely why the word was used)
FACT: Jesus did not distinguish ‘’engaged’’ in His exception clause, He clearly used the word for ‘’woman’’ or ‘’wife’’... Not ‘’betrothed’’.


Porneia

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.

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 sex only and not adultery, why is it that Paul 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.
When Paul used it in Acts 15, he was laying out a blanket coverage for ANY sexual sin, that we abstain from ALL sexual sin.
''Porneia'' (whoredom, harlotry), by default, would be ''adultery'' within a marriage, there was no need to mention adultery, it was covered.

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 use the word we know as fornication (aka PREmarital sex)
He used a word, the same as Pauls in Acts 15, that covers ALL sexual sin....whoredom.
We cannot divorce our spouse and remarry without commiting adultery against that union, EXCEPT for any sexual sin.


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

 

[Delicate]

Follower of Christ said:

Sorry, HIS authority isnt just in the books you like.
We find the truth in ALL of the gospels, not just one or two.

There is an exception clause, sorry, but everyone basically has no choice but to accept that.

Jesus has permitted ''putting away'' for ''porneia''.
________________________________________________________


Jesus permitted divorce- did not encourage it- and asbolutely forbids
remarriage. (Except for fornication during the betrothal period.)

When the majority of scripture agrees on a single point, any other portion that seems to be out of harmony, needs to be looked at in light of the scriptures that AGREE.

Scholars teach that Matthew is written to the Jewish culture. The pharasees of the time KNEW what Jesus was saying when he forbid remarriage (except for fornication).

The Jewish betrothal laws of the time demanded a woman be virgin on her wedding night. If she was found not to be- the man was free to remarry in that case. This is the ONLY time remarriage is allowed. (The woman was usually stoned, but could be put away.)

This is the ONLY interpretation that brings consistancy to the ENTIRE scripture. To hang a doctrine on one verse is dangerous, and not sound bible interpretation.

 

[follower of Christ]

_______

Jesus permitted divorce- did not encourage it- and asbolutely forbids
remarriage. (Except for fornication during the betrothal period.)

Wrong.
Jesus mentions NOTHING about a betrothal period.
That is bunk made up to justify a doctrine, nothing more

Jesus clearly uses the word for 'woman' or 'wife'
If He had MEANT BETROTHED then He would have USED the words FOR BETROTHED wife, wouldnt He?

Did Jesus say ''wife'' or "espoused" 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).
He didnt. He 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.
Jesus knew this.
When He said ''wife'' He was refering to whoredom of a wife, pre or post consumation.
(compare Matt 19.9 and 5:32 with Luke 2:5)

'Betrothed' is/was NOT a PREmarital state.
The couple are LAWfully bound in marriage during the entire betrothal period.


--------------

" The term "betrothal" in Jewish law must not be understood in its modern sense; that is, the agreement of a man and a woman to marry, by which the parties are not, however, definitely bound, but which may be broken or dissolved without formal divorce. Betrothal or engagement such as this is not known either to the Bible or to the Talmud, and only crept in among the medieval and modern Jews through the influence of the example of the Occidental nations among whom they dwelt, without securing a definite status in rabbinical law.

In the Bible.

Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.

The root ("to betroth"), from which the Talmudic abstract ("betrothal") is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of thepassages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as "wife" (II Sam. iii. 14, "my wife whom I have betrothed" ("erasti"), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as "the wife of his neighbor"). In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce. "

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... =betrothal

When the majority of scripture agrees on a single point, any other portion that seems to be out of harmony, needs to be looked at in light of the scriptures that AGREE.

amen.
The MAJORITY of the bible has ALWAYS shown that whoredom breaks the marital covenant.

Jesus did not revoke divorces, He limited them to ''porneia"...any and all sexual immorality....NOT just PREmarital sex.

This was true both PRE and POST consumation.
The crime was the same before and after consumation, adultery, as was the punishment for doing it willingly...death by stoning.

It was the same because the ''marriage'' covenant began at betrothal, not consumation....sex does not make a marriage, the covenant does.

Whoredom is a breach of that covenant, it always has been.
Anyone who has studied this out can see that the Pharisees werent just asking Jesus ''hey, can we divorce our wives''

The were asking Him if it was permissible to keep putting away a wife ''for ANY cause'' as they had been doing since the time of Moses and before.

It doesnt matter that all the details arent laid out in Mark, that is irrelevant.
God has preserved FOUR gospels for us for a reason.

But even in Mark, there is still a context to understand.
These men had been used to frivolous divorce for centuries and obviously figured out that Jesus teachings would conflict with that.

They had tried to turn the people against John, and they were trying do so with Jesus as well.
What better way to incite the mobs against Him than to have Him tell the people ''You can NEVER divorce for any reason''.
But He didnt say that.
Matthew shows us some of the story that Mark fails to mention.
Again, we have FOUR gospels for a reason.

Jesus knew the law of Moses, and that Moses had been trying to make it harder on men to use and abuse their wives.
The men took the law that Moses laid down for divorce and found away to ''misinterpret'' it by making it say they could divorce for any reason.

Not all did tho, the school of Shammai believed Moses meant a legitimate ''uncleaness'' such as sexual sin or a REAL breaking of the covenant, not just for burning his breakfast.
Jesus in Matthew 5 and 19 clearly does not do away with divorce for ''porneia''....which, by the way, could very easily be exactly what Shammai believed.... a LEGITIMATE uncleaness such as sexual sin.

Now, since these men in Matthew asked about ''for ANY cause'' divorces, we can immediately assume it was those of the school of Hillel who were speaking. They believed a man could divorce ''for any cause'', altho Shammai did not.

Either way, Moses had obviously permitted them to put away their wives for MORE reasons than God had intended on because of their hard hearts.

Jesus fixes this issue by stating only for whoredom can we put away a wife.

Scholars teach that Matthew is written to the Jewish culture.

My link would have helped explain this.

Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matter

Some state that because Matt. was written to Jews that the difference of the exception clause applies only to the Jews.
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.

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.

Luk 24:2-9 But they found the stone having been rolled away from the tomb. (3) And going in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. (4) And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. (5) Then, as they became afraid and bowed their faces to the ground, they said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? (6) He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, (7) saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.' " (8) And they remembered His words. (9) And returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.

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.

and in John, no one is mentioned at all.

Joh 20:1-2 On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. (2) Therefore she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."---



Three different descriptions given of who was there, and Johns account makes no mention at all of anyone.
Does that mean John taught there was no angel present at the tomb to his followers?
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.

The pharasees of the time KNEW what Jesus was saying when he forbid remarriage (except for fornication).

Except for PORNEIA.....Sexual sin, whoredom, harlotry.....NOT just PREmarital sex.

Porneia is NOT PREmarital sex.
It is ANY sexual immoralty, married or not.



Some interesting facts.

-FACT: We all accept the exception clause.
-FACT: We all know its dealing with sexual sin by a person we have entered into a marital covenant with (ie.. MARRIED TO lawfully)
-FACT: Jesus does not show divorce and remarriage as adultery when this ''porneia'' has been commited.
-FACT: ''Porneia'' is all inclusive of every sexual sin and alludes to much more than just sexual sin (which is most likely why the word was used)
FACT: Jesus did not distinguish ‘’engaged’’ in His exception clause, He clearly used the word for ‘’woman’’ or ‘’wife’’... Not ‘’betrothed’’.

The conclusions should be clear.
Marriage is a life covenant that can only be ended by death or ‘’porneia’’.

Thats right....only for porneia.......ANY sexual sin commited by a lawfullly married spouse.

Porneia

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.

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 sex only and not adultery, why is it that Paul 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.
When Paul used it in Acts 15, he was laying out a blanket coverage for ANY sexual sin, that we abstain from ALL sexual sin.
''Porneia'' (whoredom, harlotry), by default, would be ''adultery'' within a marriage, there was no need to mention adultery, it was covered.

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 use the word we know as fornication (aka PREmarital sex)
He used a word, the same as Pauls in Acts 15, that covers ALL sexual sin....whoredom.
We cannot divorce our spouse and remarry without commiting adultery against that union, EXCEPT for any sexual sin.

The Jewish betrothal laws of the time demanded a woman be virgin on her wedding night.

Again, Jesus didnt use the words for BETROTHED wife as He should have *IF* He were specifying a BETROTHED wife... He clearly said WIFE.

If she was found not to be- the man was free to remarry in that case. This is the ONLY time remarriage is allowed. (The woman was usually stoned, but could be put away.)

Give me CHAPTER and VERSE for this assertion.

I want to SEE with my OWN eyes where Jesus SAYS ''only during the BETROTHAL period !

He doesnt.
He uses the word for WIFE, not BETROTHED.
Sexual sin has ALWAYS broken the marriage covenant and always will.

Jesus ended frivoulous divorce, which is what He was being asked about.....''for ANY cause divorce''

This is the ONLY interpretation that brings consistancy to the ENTIRE scripture. To hang a doctrine on one verse is dangerous, and not sound bible interpretation.

Wrong

I dont hang on to ONE verse.
I hang on to the whole bible which shows that sexual sin, PRE or POST consumation has ALWAYS broken the covenant....it used to be punished by death......Jesus changed that to being the only reason one can divorce and remarry.

My belief is based on the bible as a whole, not one verse.
It is easy to see that whoredom breaches the marital covenant.
That crime was punishable by death in the Mosiac law.
Jesus, when He says ''let him who is without sin cast the first stone'' shows that He has done away with stoning the whore.

So it fits perfectly that since sexual sin has ALWAYS breached the covenant , that He would forego stoning in the case of a whoring spouse and leave the punishment at simple divorce.

It fits perfectly with who Jesus is and what He taught.


I strongly urge to you read my site, and to read this thread.
http://forums.crosswalk.com/Adultery_%2 ... 401/tm.htm



.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Okay all, this is a touchy subject and emotions can get high. Please take a step back and think before posting. Address the issue and not other posters.

Thanks.

 

[follower of Christ]

Okay all, this is a touchy subject and emotions can get high. Please take a step back and think before posting. Address the issue and not other posters.

Thanks.

My bad.

Im not emotional at all, really, altho the wife and I get a chuckle out of these debates in these forums.

I just keep forgetting to quit using the word ''you'' in my posts.

 

[Delicate]

Follower-

Correct that the word fornication in Matt. 19:9 is rendered 'pornea'. That really doesn't change anything. If the betrothed wife committed any list of sins that 'pornea' can mean- she was either stoned, or put away, and the man was free to remarry- THE ONLY TIME HE IS BIBLICALLY FREE TO REMARRY, ACCORDING TO JESUS.

Incidently, Jesus didn't have to make the distinction of 'wife' or 'betrothed wife', the pharisees understood Him- they knew the
betrothal custom.

 

[follower of Christ]

Follower-

Correct that the word fornication in Matt. 19:9 is rendered 'pornea'. That really doesn't change anything.

It doesnt?

Did you read that in Acts Paul uses the ONE word ''porneia'' and warns us to stay away from it?
Are you claiming that Paul ONLY told us to stay away from PREmarital sex?

This is why we study the bible as a whole, so we know what words mean and how to interpret them evenly thoughout the text.

Jesus didnt say "PREmarital" sex.....He said ''whoredom/harlotry/unlawful sex"

He didnt say ''betrothed'' wife, He said ''wife''



It surely makes what some teach wrong, that is for sure.
Jesus, nor any apostles teaches that this is ONLY during the betrothal period.
Jesus uses the word for wife instead of betrothed wife, as well.

The context is uniform throughout the whole bible.
Sexual sin is a breach of Gods covenant of marriage.
It was punishable by death, but Jesus altered the punishment to divorce alone.
Typical for a Man who pardoned the adulteress with ''let him who is without sin ............ "

If the betrothed wife committed any list of sins that 'pornea' can mean- she was either stoned, or put away, and the man was free to remarry- THE ONLY TIME HE IS BIBLICALLY FREE TO REMARRY, ACCORDING TO JESUS.

I asked for scriptural proof of this assertion.
I excect to see it in your next post hopefully.
Something proving that PREmarital sex was ALL that Jesus meant.

Btw, Joseph and Mary dont count as ''proof''
They lived under the Mosiac Law at that point, Jesus had not been born yet.
Joe could have put Mary away for sneezing too loudly if he had wanted to.


Jesus used WIFE, not BETROTHED, as He well could have.

He said you cannot put away your WIFE....NOT ''betrothed'' wife... and remarry without commiting adultery.

And even if He HAD used ''betrothed" wife, it STILL doesnt mean PREmarital sex.
The betrothal year was a LAWFUL, BINDING marriage covenant ONLY ended by divorce.

`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)

And what is funny is many make this a PREmarital sex thing when BETROTHED was NOT a PREmarital state...again.

Incidently, Jesus didn't have to make the distinction of 'wife' or 'betrothed wife', the pharisees understood Him- they knew the
betrothal custom.

Thats a nice convientient way to make this doctrine work, now isnt it?
Sorry, but it doesnt work that way.
We READ the bible to know what Jesus meant.

If He had MEANT ''betrothed'' our Lord would NOT have left us guessing, He would have added the extra word needed to make it clear.

Jesus laid out the rules for MANKIND, not just the Jews.

-I ask for proof that He meant "betrothed'' firstly.
-Then Ill ask how on earth any person can understand ''betrothed'' as "PREmarital" who supposedly has studied Hebrew marital customs.

If the Jews knew what Jesus meant, then SURELY Jesus knew, being a Jew, that ''betrothed'' is NOT a PREmarital state.

He was NOT only permitting these men to put away a wife on consumation nite.
Even if He were laying out the rules only to Jews, which He wasnt, He still did not distinguish that this was ONLY for the night when the man took his bride to his bed.

The 'proof' of this is that the punishment of stoning was applicable to the betrothed wife for whoring against her covenant with her husband.

When people state that porneia means ''premarital'' sex, they show that they dont know much about Jewish marriages, in my opinoin.

 

[follower of Christ]

Mods.
In the above post I sincerely am not directing any attack towards the poster.
Its very hard to not use ''you'' when Im asking the POSTER a question or pointing something out about his personal observations.

if there is something that is against the rules in this previous post, will one of the mods please point it out specifically so that I can figure out exactly how to word this in order to not be breaking the rules ?

Its very hard to have a discussion and pretend Im speaking to a paragraph and not a person.


thanks

 

[follower of Christ]

....

 

[follower of Christ]

It makes no difference that post-consummation adultery was punishable by death


Some state that adultery was punished by stoning, so Jesus canâ€Ât be teaching that divorce is ok for adultery because the punishement would have been stoning.
These same people will then say that Jesus was teaching that the Jews COULD divorce if the wife cheated during the betrothal year.

This should show that those who teach this doctrine are sorely uninformed as the death penalty was issued for willful sexual sin both PRE and POST consumation.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
(Deu 22:22-24)

My point ?

The argument that it was the death penalty for sexual immorality by a betrothed AFTER consummation is not a valid one as even the betrothed wife would have been stoned for willfully committing sexual sin against her marriage.

One if the biggest arguments presented by this doctrine is that the Jewish man, having found his 'wife' not a virgin, was permitted to ''put her away''
They ''say'' Jesus is just continuing this for the Jewish custom.
But lets look at Mosiac law on this matter as well.

And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
(Deu 22:16-21)

AGAIN we see the death penalty involved.
The death penalty was NOT just required for adultery POST consummation as some people try to say.
Moses issued the death penalty both PRE and POST consumation.
Moses issued the death penalty if a man found his wife to NOT be a virgin as well.

When we see this argument that says that a man can put away his wife for having PREmarital sex but not after consummation based on the exception clause, let us firstly see that ‘’betrothal’’ was NOT a PREmarital state... It was lawful, binding marriage.

Let us secondly notice that this argument fails because it states that the DEATH penalty was invoked AFTER consummation but that the husband would simply put the woman away if he found her to not be a virgin the night he took her to his bed.

We know from the above that the death penalty was called for on all the above instances, so stating that the penalty for sexual sin POST consummation is a moot point entirely

 

[Delicate]

FOC states:
Moses issued the death penalty if a man found his wife to NOT be a virgin as well.

When we see this argument that says that a man can put away his wife for having PREmarital sex but not after consummation based on the exception clause, let us firstly see that ‘’betrothal’’ was NOT a PREmarital state... It was lawful, binding marriage.

Let us secondly notice that this argument fails because it states that the DEATH penalty was invoked AFTER consummation but that the husband would simply put the woman away if he found her to not be a virgin the night he took her to his bed.
And the the death penalty was also given if the man found his wife to not be a virgin on night he took her to his bed.

__________________________________________________________


Yes, the betrothal was binding- that's why 'putting away' of a betrothed wife suspected of fornication was allowed. It was NOT however a marriage yet- it was the betrothal. Huge sums of money were paid for a brides virginity. The husband had a right to expect a virgin bride.

This being the case- Mary and Joseph ARE perfect examples of the point being made. She had NOT known a man, Joseph seeing her pregnant suspected her of fornication- sex before THEIR consumated marriage. Being a kind man, he would have 'put her away', had the Lord not shown him in a dream that Mary was indeed a virgin. He was about to take his rights, divorce her.

This is what Jesus references when he abrogates the law of Moses to set the standard that has been 'from the beginning':

That whoever divorces their spouse and marries another does two things-
1) commits adultry
2) causes the covenant spouse to ALSO commit adultry (if they
enter into another 'union').

Jesus was CLEAR- remarriage after divorce is adultry (unless to the original covenant spouse.)

Matt. 19:9, Mk.10:10-12, Lk. 16:18

 

[follower of Christ]

Yes, the betrothal was binding- that's why 'putting away' of a betrothed wife suspected of fornication was allowed. It was NOT however a marriage yet- it was the betrothal.

I gave you what MOSES said in ALL THREE matters.
We dont get to ''alter'' the rules for our doctrinal stances here.
The death penalty was called for PRE and POST consumation.
The death penalty was called for a man finding his woman not a virgin.

It WAS a "MARRIAGE" from the moment she was betrothed.
It was not ''complete'' as in it still needed consumation, but it WAS a ''marriage'' lawfully and religiously .
Hence the death penalty for whoredom during that time.
I believe I have posted the information on this already.

In the Bible.

Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.

The root ("to betroth"), from which the Talmudic abstract ("betrothal") is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of thepassages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as "wife" (II Sam. iii. 14, "my wife whom I have betrothed" ("erasti"), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as "the wife of his neighbor"). In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... =betrothal

Betrothed was marriage only ended by divorce.
The marriage COVENANT was intact BEFORE consummation !!!

Huge sums of money were paid for a brides virginity. The husband had a right to expect a virgin bride.

Hmmm... where did I dispute this ?
I dont see how making this statement has any bearing on this discussion at all.

This being the case- Mary and Joseph ARE perfect examples of the point being made. She had NOT known a man, Joseph seeing her pregnant suspected her of fornication- sex before THEIR consumated marriage. Being a kind man, he would have 'put her away', had the Lord not shown him in a dream that Mary was indeed a virgin. He was about to take his rights, divorce her.

They arent good examples at all.
They lived under Mosiac Law.
Joe could have put her away for any reason he wished.
You said....

It was NOT however a marriage yet- it was the betrothal.

If Mary wasnt Josephs WIFE, then Jesus would be illegitimate, that is a fact.

*IF* Mary wasnt Josephs lawful WIFE, the Jews would have made Jesus and Marys life hell over it.

Jesus being a ''messiah'' and born to a woman who was not ''married''
Knowing anything about the Jews at all shows us that they would have been pointing this out first and foremost if Jesus was born out of wedlock.

Mary would have been put to trial as well if she wasnt joes WIFE.
And certainly the popularity of her Son would have drawn the pharisees attention to her ''unmarried with child'' status.

This is what Jesus references when he abrogates the law of Moses to set the standard that has been 'from the beginning':

That whoever divorces their spouse and marries another does two things-
1) commits adultry
2) causes the covenant spouse to ALSO commit adultry (if they
enter into another 'union').

Contradiction?
You said that Jesus ''abrogated'' or ''did away with'' the law of Moses, but then you show from your posts that you DO accept the FACT that a HUSBAND can ''divorce'' his wife for fornication.

So which is it?
Has Moses permission for ''divorce'' been ''abrogated'' or not friend ?

Jesus was CLEAR- remarriage after divorce is adultry (unless to the original covenant spouse.)

Jesus WAS clear, wasnt He.
Except for whoredom (any and all sexual immorality by a "WIFE"..consumated or not)

 

[follower of Christ]

....

 

[follower of Christ]

delicate.

I asked this before.
I hope you will take the time to answer it.

-I ask for proof that He meant "betrothed'' firstly.

Please take a couple minutes to humor me if you would.

Show me with scripture that Jesus was ONLY refering to PREmarital sex that a woman could be divorced over in his exception clause.


Thanks

 

[follower of Christ]

Another interesting point, delicate.

Was Jesus ''illegitimate" when He was born?

If Mary wasnt Josephs lawful ''wife'' when Jesus was born that would make Him illegitimate, wouldnt it ?


If Mary wasnt Josephs WIFE, then Jesus would be illegitimate, that is a fact.

*IF* Mary wasnt Josephs lawful WIFE, the Jews would have made Jesus and Marys life hell over it.

Jesus being a ''messiah'' and born to a woman who was not ''married''
Knowing anything about the Jews at all shows us that they would have been pointing this out first and foremost if Jesus was born out of wedlock.

Mary would have been put to trial as well if she wasnt joes WIFE.
And certainly the popularity of her Son would have drawn the pharisees attention to her ''unmarried with child'' status

 

[Delicate]

I'm sorry Follower,

Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me. The straining you do to make a point is really not necessary. And I will debate this no more with you.

Jesus said it plainly:

Matthew 19:9: And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife,
except for fornication (which means ANYTHING sexual before marriage), and shall marry another commiteth adultry: and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultry.

Mark 10:11-12: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marrieth another commiteth adultry against her. v12- And if a woman shall put away her husband, and marrieth another, she comitteth adultry.

Luke 16:18 Whoso putteth away his wife and marrieth another, commiteth adultry: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, commiteth adultry.

Plain and simple. Jesus came to fulfill the law. He abrogated Moses allowance and establishsed the standard that HE held from the beginning: ONE MAN WITH ONE WOMAN- FOR LIFE. Anything else JESUS calls adultry.

This isn't about the opinion of ANY man- JESUS is clear. (And the beloved apostle Paul makes the SAME assertions in both Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Cor. 7:39).

In reality, the whole divorce / remarriage issue is not really to be debated- IT IS TO BE OBEYED.