PROVE to me that 'except for fornication' was only for Jews

[follower of Christ]

Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?


Actually, it does seem to give grounds for 'putting away' for things like abuse, ect.

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:
If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,
and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
(1Co 7:12)


The wording there clearly shows that if she is 'pleased' then let him not put her away.
This statement is conditional.
It doesnt not simply state 'let him not put her away' but adds the condition of being 'pleased' to his not putting her away.
If this were an absolute statement, that he not put her away then it should be stated as such, but its not. A condition is very apparent in the actual text.

So what does this word 'pleased' mean?

G4909
1) to be pleased together with, to approve together (with others)
2) to be pleased at the same time with, consent, agree to
2a) to applaud


the word clearly shows a mutually pleasant experience.
She is pleased along with him...at the same time....'together'.

If one spouse is being beaten, they would hardly be "pleased together with" the person who is beating them....so why does Paul show the condition of mutual pleasing if there is no condition at all ?

In taking the actual greek into account, we clearly see a condition added to Pauls stating that this man not 'put away' his wife. The condition being that the marriage is pleasing mutually... the greek does not show a one sided thing at all.

Paul then shows the same thing in reverse for the believing wife in this situation....

And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
(1Co 7:13)


"leave him" there is the same as 'put away' in the previous verse.

G863
aphie?mi
Thayer Definition:
1) to send away
1a) to bid going away or depart
1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife
1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
1c) to let go, let alone, let be
1c1) to disregard
1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
1c2a) of teachers, writers and speakers
1c3) to omit, neglect
1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
1e) to give up, keep no longer
2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
3) to leave, go way from one
3a) in order to go to another place
3b) to depart from any one
3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all mutual claims are abandoned
3d) to desert wrongfully
3e) to go away leaving something behind
3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
3i) abandon, leave destitute[/quote]
The context of 'divorce' as a whole in scripture is either the casting out of a spouse or the leaving of a marriage with the intent of 'putting away' that marriage (altho there are some who try to pretend the two are not the same intent)


If we jump back up to verse 7:11 we see that this woman who has departed her marriage is deemed 'unmarried' by Paul....Agamos/single/unwed/ARAMOC


G22
agamos
Thayer Definition:
1) unmarried, unwedded, single


I think the greek makes it very clear that in a situation where a believer is married to an unbeliever who is abusing them that the condition above that Paul presents does give 'grounds' for divorcing the spouse (leaving the marriage)

Pauls condition of if it is "pleased" (meaning mutually) is the 'grounds' for putting away this spouse if they are abusing and its not pleasing.
The "leaving" of the believer would cause them to be "agamos" or unwed/single/unmarried according to Paul thus showing that they are quite divorced when they left with that intent.

In a case of two believers tho, there is a call to reconcile or remain unmarried.
Of course, some folks move on because they no longer wish to be abused.

 

[follower of Christ]

The exception was NOT only for Jews but ALL of Jesus' followers.



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.

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)

http://theassemblyministries.com/page34.html

 

[follower of Christ]

"That She Find No Favor In His Eyes Because He Hath Found Some Uncleaness in Her"


Assertions/Conclusions of this article:


This article is to help discern those doctrines based on Deut 24:1-4 supposedly being about putting away a wife for sexual sin. These doctrines use this as their foundation to say that the rules were changed and that divorce, not death, was prescribed in the law for harlotry of a wife.

Some believe that the pharisees misinterpreted 'some uncleaness' in Deut 24:1 and that Moses really only meant it for sexual sins. Some also believe that Jesus is supposedly doing away with this mythical "allowance" for divorce for sexual sin in Matthew 19:9 by correcting their "interpretation' of Deut 24:1.

We show in this writing that ;

1) "some uncleaness" (ervah dabar) isnt refering to sexual sin or bodily nakedness (as ervah alone means) but is refering to a much broader range of 'uncleaness' instead.



Supporting evidence:


The Hebrew word 'ervah' is often used to convey the idea of "nakedness"...also inferring the idea of harlotry in many cases. This is the foundation for many doctrinal views out there that rely on Deut 24:1-4 being about sexual sin of a betrothed wife.

But the text of Deut 24 doesnt seem to imply a sexual sin at all, and the Israelites in general did not believe that it was meant to be limited to sexual sins but instead meant any 'uncleaness' about the wife that the husband had assigned to her. Take a quick look at Matthew 19:1-9 and you will see the phrase 'for every cause' there. This is in reference to Deut 24:1-4 and this term 'some uncleaness' used there.

What we are asserting in this article is that, while "ervah" alone does imply human nakedness and sexual sin, the phrase 'ervah dabar' isn't limited to those definitions but implies a broader range of 'uncleaness' instead.

Here is "ervah dabar" in Deut 24:1 :

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some1697 uncleanness6172 in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.


This is the word 'some' just before 'uncleaness'

H1697
da?ba?r
BDB Definition:
1) speech, word, speaking, thing
1a) speech
1b) saying, utterance
1c) word, words
1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner


Hebrew and Greek are just alike in the aspect that a word can have a meaning that is modified by the wording and context around it. So if we wanted to get technical, it says "he has found unclean speech" in her. If we want to say it has to be sexually oriented, then what is actually said is "he has found sexual speech in her".
If we take the wording literally and precisely it shows that he has found some indecent (sexual?) speech in her or "has found her speaking indecently" as the case might be.

Now, we're not able to say that this IS actually refering to her saying anything because when we look at 'ervah dabar' in Deut 23, it hasnt the first thing to do with speech at all. Since the phrase is only used twice in the OT, we have to use the context in which it is used in Deut 23:14 to determine its use in Deut 24:1.
Looking at the use of the word "dabar" (H1697) we see that it is used just as often where it doesnt have anything to do with actual speech or a word, but in many other ways, including being once used as 'disease'. So its definition or intent is not limited to the spoken word by any means, which is made very apparent with its use in Deut 23:13-14.


The phrases "some uncleaness" (Deut 24:1) and "unclean thing" are "ervah debar" in Hebrew.

We see this very same use of "ervah debar" used just one chapter before in Deut:23 in the phrase "unclean thing" (ervah debar). From our studies, the phrase 'ervah dabar only occurs twice in the Old testament. Once in Deut 24:1 above and once here in verse 23:14. When trying to understand the meaning of the phrase in Deut 24:1, we look to see how it is used elsewhere, Deut 23:14 being the only other occurance we have to determine its exact use.

Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean6172 thing1697 in thee, and turn away from thee.
(Deu 23:12-14)


(in laymans terms, take a shovel with you, dig a hole and when you have relieved yourself, bury it)

In that passage the phrase "ervah dabar" isn't restricted to the fornications as some assert that ervah always means, but is clearly being used blanketly against all uncleanness in the camp (the example given being human excrement).

In fact, it isn't until verse 23:17 that the harlots/whores and sexual sin are brought into the conversation. This is probably why the scholars don't believe that "ervah debar" is about sexual sins of the wife in Deut 24:1-4.

Seeing that those sins are covered already just two chapters previously and that there are terrible contractions caused by trying to assert that Deut 24:1-4 is about sexual sins, including Deut 22:23-24 that presents that the woman might still be put to death by anyone else other than the husband if caught sinning against her husband in this manner.

Given that the phrase is exactly the same, in Deut 24:1 as it is in 23:14, we can conclude, just as the translators did, that it isnt necessarily in reference to fornication but of a more broader understanding of 'uncleaness'...just as the Jews divorced for and just what they were asking Jesus about in Matthew 19.

If we were to use the meaning of the phrase "ervah dabar" in Deut 24:1 as it appears in Deut 23:12-14 then what this "uncleaness" he has found in her is.....well, Im sure you readers can connect the dots.
The main thing is that the phrase used in Deut 24:1 has nothing to do with her sexual sin but just a general uncleaness that has caused her to find no favor in his eyes...

"some uncleaness" in Deut 24:1 cannot be refering to sexual sins of the wife, betrothed or consummated for the following reasons.

1) These sins were covered just two chapters prior in Deut 22. It makes no sense that there would be a change in part of the law so quickly in Deut 24 without also changing the other laws that would still affect this situation (see #3 below).

2) If Deut 24:1-4 were actually an amendment to Deut 22:13-21, then this means that God put a law into place, then amended part of it within weeks. God and Moses both would have to be very absent minded for this to work.

3) Deut 22:23-24 would still be in effect. This means that while Deut 24:1-4 would be saying that the husband would put her away for sexual sins now instead of having her stoned at her fathers door, that ANY other Israelite could levy charges against her and have her put to death anyway. A terrible hole in this idea that Deut 24 is about sexual sins.

The fact is that all of the evidence is against "some uncleaness" being about sexual sin. The only thing that is any sort of 'evidence' for the view that it does mean sexual sins is that it 'sounds similar' to Deut 22:13-21....but in looking at the actual wording we see that its not that similar at all.

 

[follower of Christ]

Does God endorse divorce?

Assertions/Conclusions of this article:


Here we will briefly show that, contrary to the error of some, fornication was not the only ‘allowance’ for leaving a marriage as some erroneously teach.
We do not believe that Deut 24:1-4 is a permission for divorce as at that time divorce had already been tolerated, but is only a regulation for these ‘for EVERY cause’ divorces already being suffered by Moses. We do believe, however, that there were other reasons laid out by God and Moses whereby a marriage might be lawfully left and that this law was put into place for the protection of the wife if her husband refused to provide for her, and also presented no ‘hardheartedness’ on her part, as some have said is always the case in divorce, but was because she was being deprived of things that were due her as a married woman.


Supporting evidence:

In this article we will look back into the Old Testament to see if there is any evidence that marriage was ever ended according to Gods own word, and if so, what the conditions laid out in the scriptures actually was. What we want to see here is if there was ever actually any reason that Gods word permitted walking away from a marriage.


And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
(Exo 21:7-11)


Firstly, notice the words “duty of MARRIAGEâ€Â. In this we see that this is pertaining to his absolute responsibility to this woman because of MARRIAGE...this isn’t just because she is a slave as some might erroneously assert. If this were a simple matter of his being out of line as far as her having been a slave, the text would need to show this fact.
But instead we see that firstly she is to become as one of the fathers own daughters in all regards, then having been given to his son as a wife, she is regarded AS a wife and a daughter and all the rights bestowed upon such.
These rules apply to a wife. ANY wife, not just a slave girl.

We also look at the context there so that none may accuse us of failing to do so.
In this scenario, the father has bought a young woman as a slave/servant, most likely because her parents were poor. He apparently was going to take her for his own wife, then seems to have found something in her that is displeasing, but what we find odd here is that he then gives her to his son as a wife.
What man would knowingly give his own son a wife who he himself found to be failing in this regard? The text shows that the man has dealt ‘deceitfully’ with her, and so we see that there is some incrimination against the man already in this, even though she is supposedly the one who is not pleasing to him.

This man then takes this young woman, who some scholars believe may have already ‘corrupted’ her, and then gives her to his own son. Again, who gives a displeasing woman to his own son?
If this is done, then the father must treat this woman as his own daughter and all the rights given to such, meaning she must receive a dowry from him and when she was taken as the wife of the son, he also had to fulfill his required duties to this woman.

Even if the man were to take another wife, nothing was permitted to be lessened as far as this woman was concerned. She was to be provided for with the same food, the same clothing and the same sexual requirements as she had had before this man took another wife.
If any single of these failed, the she was permitted to go out free from this marriage.

We see here that God does make provision for a wife. He has set the tone for divorce here Himself by showing ‘condition’ in which a marriage may be left without this ‘hardheartedness’ as is shown as being present when men divorce ‘for every cause’ by finding ‘some uncleaness’ in this wife.
We are left with little choice but to accept the fact that all ending of a marriage in the Old Testament was not for ‘hardheartedness’ by default, but when the husband did not fulfill his duties owed to a wife (food, clothing, conjugal duty), she was permitted to leave the marriage, being freed from it.

Now, *IF* ALL ‘divorce’ (leaving/abandoning/ending of a marital covenant) is against Gods will then why is there provision here based on the husbands failing to provide for his wife? This woman, regardless of how she came to be this mans wife IS still his wife and is entitled to certain levels of accommodation as far as the husband is concerned and is required to supply.

The one that really sticks out in my mind is ‘duty of marriage’. For the most part the scholars I’ve read believe this to be sexual duties of the marriage. What he is to provide for her in this area is not permitted to diminish.
If a man were to take a second wife, could he fulfill this obligation to both? How about a third wife? A fourth?
At what point would a mans ‘duty of marriage’ start to diminish with this first wife? How many wives could a man keep up with in this regard knowing that as soon as his relationship with his new wife makes him unable to perform this conjugal duty then the former has just cause to leave the marriage.

What I believe in my own mind was that this type of law was set into place to protect a wife firstly and to help control polygamy secondly. It seems to be a fairly effective manner in dealing with both issues.

What we see in this small passage is that it is quite probable that not all ending of marriages would be deemed as ‘sin’ in Gods eyes. If a husband was not fulfilling his duties to his wife, then she, as the innocent party, could walk away from her marriage without committing any transgression against Him or His law.

 

[follower of Christ]

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 “adulteryâ€Â, 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 adulterer ?
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’’ (not the Unmarried tripe that some pass off on us )

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.

 

[follower of Christ]

What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together?


Firstly let us see and agree that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman.
To prove this we see that a husband and wife will become ''one flesh''..

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."


We see that a husband and wife will be ''one flesh''.
to further understand what this ''one flesh'' is lets look to something outside the marriage union....

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."
(1Co 6:16-)


Paul shows that even having sex with a harlot, one to whom we arent married, obviously, is the same as ''one flesh'' in marriage.
Paul even quotes God/Jesus when he states..."For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh".

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.
So we see that ''one flesh'' is merely the sexual union between a man and a woman, married or not.

If anyone other than Jesus would understand what 'one flesh' was, it would be Moses.
The man wrote the law, we can rest assured that he understood Gods intent from the beginning.

That Moses were ever permitted to allow divorce/remarriage (as proven in Deut 24:1-4) shows absolutely that this perpetual 'one flesh' bond is nothing more than unscriptural nonsense.

Moses had permitted a man to put away a wife just because she found no 'favor in his eyes''.
She was permitted to REmarry.
*IF* 'one flesh' from the beginning were UNbreakable, then so it would be in Moses day, Moses would have KNOWN that if it were the case, and ongoing adultery would have been the crime of this woman put away and REmarried, as she most likely would have been.

Are we naive enough to think that Moses was sentencing an innocent woman to hell by permitting her to REmarry ?
All he had to have done *IF* one flesh were perpetual was tell the INNOCENT they couldnt remarry so as to not be in 'adultery' as some suppose today.

But he didnt.

Because Moses understood that this one flesh is not continued perpetually when a divorce has happened.
If the divorce is scriptural, then the bond is broken, ended....no adultery is committed when one REmarries.
Just as in Jesus exception. He narrowed the allowance to fornication alone, but He did not change the definition of divorce, nor did HE disallow remarriage in the case where fornication has happened.

Adultery is committed now when a spouse is put away for any reason short of fornication, and we then remarry.

Lets look at Joseph and Mary now.
Firstly we know that Jesus was not illegitimate. He was born to two lawfully married people. The Jews accepted this and called Joseph Jesus' father (many not knowing any different).

*IF* marriage was not valid without consummation....the two being ''one flesh'' as it were, then Joseph and Mary wouldnt be ''married'' and Jesus would have been illegitimate....without a lawful earthly father.

Joseph had not yet been with Mary before Jesus was born, yet WAS said to be her ''husband'' and she his ''wife'' or espoused (betrothed) wife. He was going to put Mary away when he found her with child, showing that she was indeed his ''lawful'' wife....if she werent his wife he could have just left her obviously.

What bound Joseph to Mary was not sex, as is blindingly apparent, since they had had no sexual union at that point, but what DID bind them was they were joined in matrimony, Gods holy marital covenant.

So when we look at ''one flesh'', we can clearly see that because of 1 Cor. 6:16 that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman, married or not.
And since we know that we arent married to the harlot just because we make ourselves ''one flesh'' with her, that this ''one flesh'' is NOT any tie that is unbreakable.

There is no such thing as breaking the ''one flesh'' union, otherwise 1 Cor. 6:16 would show that every person who has had sex with someone they werent married to is permanently ''one flesh'' with them for life...and we know that isnt the case based on the context of 1 Cor. 6.

Conclusions:
-''one flesh'' is sex, plain and simple.... as proven by 1 Corinthians 6:16
-Sex is not the tie that binds, the covenant is...as proven by Joseph and Mary.
-What binds a man and woman for life is the marriage covenant..... which we know is a conditional covenant, for Jesus has said ''except''.

*IF* ‘’one flesh’’ is what makes a man and wife ‘’married’’ (as some see it), then Joseph and Mary were NOT married and our Lord was born illegitimate.
Proof that is not the case is in Luke 3:23, Luke 4:24, John 1:45, John 6:42. Jesus WAS Josephs ‘’son’’ as far as being born into a LAWFUL, binding marriage covenant.

To add...
When the union is 'dissolved' is defined in Deut 24:1-4.
Jesus never altered that definition, 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'.

 

[follower of Christ]

The FACT is that there WERE remarried divorcees IN the church in Pauls lifetime. This shoots holes all thru this nonsense that NO divorce/remarriage was ever accepted by the church or Paul.


This is part of that 'evidence' you speak of, remember. My guess is your doctrinal view wont allow for it to simply show what it clearly does tho.

Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church

Assertions/Conclusions of this article:


This article is to show evidence that there were remarried divorcess in the early church who were in fellowship, neither being cast out, nor condemned by the brethren. There were restrictions placed on these individuals, but they were in the church.

Supporting evidence:


1.1)

Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
(1Ti 5:9)


"Having been the 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 prohibited the widow from remarrying. 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 as 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...yet not condemned to hell or cast out of fellowship.
1.2)

Titus 1:6 if anyone is blameless, husband of one wife, having believing children, not accused of loose behavior, or disobedient.


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.

http://theassemblyministries.com/page3.html

 

[follower of Christ]

REmember, I hope you will either just admit that you have no PROOF in this matter or simply move on.
I wanted this thread to be productive, not another mindless repetitoin of 10 other pointless MDR threads here.

The ONLY thing Ive seen you try to really assert here is that Jesus was talking about the law, therefore HIs exception must only apply to the Jews.

This is non-sequitor argument and does not constitute the PROOF that I requested in my OP as it doesnt actually say anything of the sort in and of itself...
I have given more than enough evidence in this thread to show that your views are erroneous and that there were remarried divorcees in the church, not having been expelled like the man in 1 Cor 5 who was actually living in ongoing sin.


NIKKI.
If you got my PM, please delete this thread, or at least lock it.
It has turned into just another MDR thread at this point.

This is my own fault.
I should have had the foresight to see how this would have turned out.