Why is divorce never allowed?

[Delicate]

Quoting Follower:
Some interesting facts.

-FACT: We all accept the exception clause....we have NO choice but to accept our Lords words.
-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). It is NOT exclusive to PREmartal sex (see Acts 15)
-FACT: Jesus did not distinguish ‘’engaged’’ in His exception clause, He clearly used the word for ‘’woman’’ or ‘’wife’’... Not ‘’betrothed’’...He said ''wife'' consumated or not.
Logical conclusion: divorce and remarriage when ANY sexual sin has been commited by either spouse is NOT adultery by our Lords own concession.
_____________________________________________________________

Several misconceptions, Follower.

The exception clause refers to the betrothal period which was binding but not consumated. During that time, the 'wife' was expected to remain virgin. The term here is 'pornea' which could mean any sexual sin commited before consumated marriage.

It is also fact that the exception clause referred to in Matthew 19:9 is included for the Jewish audience it was written for. The other gospels that record Jesus' same words, but written for gentiles, exclude it. Thus
we read the facts:

Mrk 10:11-12 : Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another,
COMMITTETH ADULTRY AGAINST HER.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be
married to another, she committeth adultry.

Lk 16:18 : Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another,
committeth adultry: and whosoever marrieth her that is
put away from her husband, committeth adultry.

Recorded in 3 gospels, SAME message- plain and simple. In doing away with Moses' law, Jesus establishes HIS standard. The standard HE held from the beginning:

ONE man, with ONE woman- FOR LIFE- the picture of HIS own devoted love for us- and OUR passionate loyalty to Him.

Follower, question if I may? Have you SERIOUSLY heard what is presented in Jesus' mandate of the permancy of marriage? Have you quieted your own emotions, to hear? This question is presented in ALL sincerity- I'm not mocking you, or debating here. . . please do not answer with debate. You can PM me if you'd like- you don't need to answer publically....

I'm concerned, very concerned...

 

[Klee shay]

I'm confused. Can someone tell me why when Jesus used the word "wife" it suddenly means engaged to be married?? Where did Jesus make this distinction and please provide scriptual proof.

 

[Klee shay]

I also need to ask where is the Lord's forgivness in all this? He makes all things new, he forgives us of our tresspasses - why oh why is that omitted from His good works, to all matters pertaining to mankind and sin?

Divorce and remarriage comes under the terms of forgiveness after repenting from previous sins. If you don't believe in his forgiveness then you shouldn't get remarried - but don't call it repentence when he offers forgiveness for *any* sin except blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

True repentence is humbling yourself before the Lord, admitting your transgression and starting anew. It is not repentence if you cannot start anew after receiving the Lord's forgiveness - it is bondage to an unforgiven sin. The blood of Jesus washes away the sin - it does not keep it to remind us of our mistakes.

If you do not believe that Jesus can make all things new, then remarriage is not for you.

 

[SavedSinner]

First of all when it says it is better to marry than to burn, Paul was talking to virgins. Secondly, when it says the husband is not under bondage if the wife leaves, it means he is not required to take care of and support her anymore. NO ALIMONY. Rough aint? I realize that Hager was not Abraham's wife but when God told him to send her away Abraham, a rich man, gave her nor her son anything.
Yes, that is what I did. You see God does not honor that second vow that you made. He only sees the first one. I know it is a very touchy subject and in my heart I hope that I have misunderstood it, because if I have, I have nothing to worry about but, for the people in the situation, who refuse to take the Word of God at what it says, well if I'm right then they have a lot to worry about. For their sakes I hope they can remain remarried. Really, I do. It is a very hard thing, it's not fun or pleasant in any form, except the peace that God gives. I wish we did have more than one chance to correct our stupid mistakes, but God takes a vow very seriously. The problem is it is not taught to us from little up, otherwise we wouldn't make so many stupid mistakes. Believe me I could kick myself over and over for alot of my mistakes. Thank-God they are under the blood.

AMEN!!!!! :angel:

 

[Drew]

Some thoughts:

I think we need to temper our reading of the prohibition against divorce with our knowledge about the "way the world works" in general. I am going to give a somewhat ridiculous example that I recognize is a little far out. However, I hope that it will illuminate a general principle.

Suppose that "Fred" (a Christian) becomes intoxicated on sedatives he is prescribed for a dental procedure. Still confused by the sedatives, he then goes out and marries some woman he meets on the street corner. He has known this woman for 2 hours and for some strange reason, she agrees to the marriage. Fred wakes up the next morning, his head now clear, with a severe case of "what have I done?". Over the course of the next few weeks / months, he comes to realize that he and his new bride are simply not compatible.

Can Fred get a divorce and then remarry later in life without committing adultery?

I would say yes.

We know from rich life experience that people do indeed "make mistakes" - their judgement is impaired, they are under strong emotional duress, etc. The simple fact of the matter is that there are "competence" issues related to marriage choices. And I think it is naive to argue something like "Even though Fred's marriage was entered into incompetently, God will bless the marriage." I would dearly love to believe this, but my experience with regard to couples that I know suggests that this fundamental incompatibility will not generally be overcome.

 

[follower of Christ]

Quoting Follower:
Some interesting facts.

-FACT: We all accept the exception clause....we have NO choice but to accept our Lords words.
-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). It is NOT exclusive to PREmartal sex (see Acts 15)
-FACT: Jesus did not distinguish ‘’engaged’’ in His exception clause, He clearly used the word for ‘’woman’’ or ‘’wife’’... Not ‘’betrothed’’...He said ''wife'' consumated or not.
Logical conclusion: divorce and remarriage when ANY sexual sin has been commited by either spouse is NOT adultery by our Lords own concession.
_____________________________________________________________

Several misconceptions, Follower.

The exception clause refers to the betrothal period which was binding but not consumated. During that time, the 'wife' was expected to remain virgin.

It would seem that Im not the one with the severe misconceptions here.

The exception clause does NOT refer to the betrothal period alone, it applies to ANY wife, consummated or not.

Ill ask you to PROVE your assertion!!!

She was still a COVENANT WIFE.........not in some PREmarital state.
Jesus exception clause uses ''wife''... she was a ''wife'' the second she becamed betrothed.
She was a "wife'' after consumation.
she was a "wife'' from the moment the covenant was made, consumated or not.

The term here is 'pornea' which could mean any sexual sin commited before consumated marriage.

Put your money where your fingers are and PROVE this assertion for us all here please.
Dont just say it PROVE IT !

The SCHOLARS of the greek dont mention that porneia is ONLY PREconsumation sex, and it makes no sense at all that it would be given the context of the word in the whole of the NT.

Jesus doesnt SAY ''BEFORE CONSUMATED marriage'' does He?

The word porneia doesnt MEAN ''BEFORE CONSUMATED marriage" or else Paul in Acts 15 is ONLY warning us to stay away from that alone and not adultery, beastiality, incest, etc, which is absurdity....Paul clearly was stating to abstain from ALL sexual sin.

This is why this doctrine is errant.
It makes up its own rules of interpretation.

Porneia is ALL sexual sin !

It is also fact that the exception clause referred to in Matthew 19:9 is included for the Jewish audience it was written for.

Lets cover this yet once more.....

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.

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?
So WHICH is right.....Mark to the Gentile, Matthew to the Jews or John showing no one at all?

ALL of them are right, we take the TOGETHER in CONTEXT and find the HARMONY between them.
ITS THE SAME WITH THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE !!!!
Matthew being written to Jews has NO bearing on this matter.

Jesus didnt SAY it was only for Jews and their betrothal year (which is NOT a PREmarital state anyway, ‘’betrothed†was lawfully married. Otherwise Jesus was illegitimate at birth, Mary and Joe han not consummated at that point)

Comparing PREmarital to Betrothed shows that we dont understand much about Jewish betrothal..

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 was irrelevant, it was written for the follow-
ers of Jesus Christ.

The rules apply evenly to all, the Jews receive some special ability to protect themselves from a whoring spouse while the
rest of His children are left open to abuse.

Follower, question if I may? Have you SERIOUSLY heard what is presented in Jesus' mandate of the permancy of marriage?

Let me ask a question as well.
Does your ''opinion'' come from years of BIBLE study alone, or from the writings of men you believe to be right?
Mine comes from studying my bible and the history of the Hebrews, facts, not a bunch of websites full of men pushing what they think is true.

Have you quieted your own emotions, to hear?

Have you?
I take it that we may be finally running out of material for discussion here.
PLease stick to the topic and scripture.and leave the emotionalism at the door.

thanks.

This question is presented in ALL sincerity- I'm not mocking you, or debating here. . . please do not answer with debate. You can PM me if you'd like- you don't need to answer publically....

No need to pm you friend, all I have to say can be said in the open forum.
Dont worry about mocking me, you have yet to present a single item to me that hasnt been refuted.

I'm concerned, very concerned...

More emotionalism without presenting evidence for this discussion.
Ill ask once more that you refrain from presenting anything beyond evidence for the current duscussion.

again, thanks.


God bless[/quote]

 

[Delicate]

Follower stated:
_____________________________________________________________
Quote: Delicate
Follower, question if I may? Have you SERIOUSLY heard what is presented in Jesus' mandate of the permancy of marriage?
_____________________________________________________________

Let me ask a question as well.
Does your ''opinion'' come from years of BIBLE study alone, or from the writings of men you believe to be right?
Mine comes from studying my bible and the history of the Hebrews, facts, not a bunch of websites full of men pushing what they think is true.

____________________________________________________________

Follower, the stance I take was shown to me by the Spirit of God through the Written Word in my own personal study. I come to my conclusions without any emotional tags. So, there you have another question answered- I HAVE silenced my emotions to hear. I do NOT have anything to gain or loose in my debate here. I stand SOLELY on the word of God WITHOUT the blinders of guilt, or sting of conviction.

I do not appreciate being treating me like a child without any reasoning ability. Please DO NOT CHIDE me for stating the truth you deny. You have no authority over me, and I DO NOT acknowledge your presentation as truth. Intimidation does NOTHING to prove your stance.

 

[follower of Christ]

Follower, the stance I take was shown to me by the Spirit of God through the Written Word in my own personal study. I come to my conclusions without any emotional tags.

This seems to be the same generic response Im getting from every direction.
2000 different ''interpretations'' and EVERYONE was shown them ''by the Spirit of God".....and everyone is ''without'' emotional bias as well.

So, there you have another question answered- I HAVE silenced my emotions to hear.

Is that all you silenced?
The word Porneia has a meaning, whether you like it or not.
You change that meaning from ''illicit sexual intercourse'' or harlotry to either PREmarital sex or ''betrothal sex'' leaving THOSE to be the ONLY thing Paul could have been warning against in Acts 15 (not to mention the conflict this causes amoung many other passages)

I do NOT have anything to gain or loose in my debate here.

yeah, Ive been hearing this on CF for 3.5 years and Crosswalk since Ive been there.
No matter what the beliefs are of the person we are debating they never have anything to ''lose' so they must be right.

am I the ONLY person on this planet who will admit to being biased?

I stand SOLELY on the word of God WITHOUT the blinders of guilt, or sting of conviction.

Interesting.
You have no blinders, but clearly refuse to accept the context of the word Porneia as it is used in the whole of the NT by changing the meaning of the word to ''illicit sex during betrothal".

I do not appreciate being treating me like a child without any reasoning ability.

I thought we were having an adult conversation here. Are we not?
Am I treating you like a child simply by proving you wrong and trying to understand WHY you believe what you do?
Hardly.
You obviously have reasoning ability as you have drawn your conclusions.
I want to know if you drew them from websites pushing a specific doctrine, or if you drew your conclusions from Gods word and the historical facts.

Thats not treating you like your unintelligent, its asking what you sources are.

Please DO NOT CHIDE me for stating the truth you deny.

You mean the truth that Porneia is NOT ''illicit betrothal sex'' but ANY and ALL sexual immorality.....that its use in the WHOLE of the NT proves this conclusively.....that truth?

You have no authority over me,

Oh good grief, here we go with this stuff here as well.
No one is exerting any authoirty over you.
Stop posting if you dont like what I have to say.
If you post, and it is errant, expect me to respond
If you cant handle the response, DONT READ IT !!

and I DO NOT acknowledge your presentation as truth.

Who said you had to...surely not me.
If you choose to keep you faulty definition that porneia is unlawful sex ONLY during the betrothal year, that is up to you.
If you teach it and I have the posting ability to show that you are wrong, I will do so.

Intimidation does NOTHING to prove your stance.

Why is it that proving someone wrong always ends up either ''intimidating'' or ''belittling'' or ''whatever'' ?

You made assertions, I have shown them errant.
I was trying to understand WHY you believe what you do, it helps to know that so we can have a fruitful discussion.

MOST of the people I know believe very closely to what the persons who raised them do. It just happens.
They also will listen to people who are pushing doctrines that ''sound'' 100% correct and jump right on board with them and will never really, truly try to prove these folks wrong.

I have TWO mentors whom I trust.
Both of these men have been told that if they are teaching something that Doesnt line up perfectly with scripture, and they persist in it, that they will no longer be my mentor.

I have learned quite a bit from them, more than anyone else in the 20 years Ive been at this. But if one of them starts teaching something like ''you MUST speak in tongues'' or some other lie like that, then as much as I care about them, I will no longer put myself in subjection to them.

I asked what I did because I would hope that YOU would test every word that you have heard against Gods WHOLE word, not just a few proof texts.

Lets return to the topic at hand now so we dont get the mods upset at us.

Ill end with a little note from my site Im working on.

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)

God bless

 

[follower of Christ]

Follower, the stance I take was shown to me by the Spirit of God through the Written Word in my own personal study. I come to my conclusions without any emotional tags.

This seems to be the same generic response Im getting from every direction.
2000 different ''interpretations'' and EVERYONE was shown them ''by the Spirit of God".....and everyone is ''without'' emotional bias as well.

So, there you have another question answered- I HAVE silenced my emotions to hear.

Is that all you silenced?
The word Porneia has a meaning, whether you like it or not.
You change that meaning from ''illicit sexual intercourse'' or harlotry to either PREmarital sex or ''betrothal sex'' leaving THOSE to be the ONLY thing Paul could have been warning against in Acts 15 (not to mention the conflict this causes amoung many other passages)

I do NOT have anything to gain or loose in my debate here.

yeah, Ive been hearing this on CF for 3.5 years and Crosswalk since Ive been there.
No matter what the beliefs are of the person we are debating they never have anything to ''lose' so they must be right.

am I the ONLY person on this planet who will admit to being biased?

I stand SOLELY on the word of God WITHOUT the blinders of guilt, or sting of conviction.

Interesting.
You have no blinders, but clearly refuse to accept the context of the word Porneia as it is used in the whole of the NT by changing the meaning of the word to ''illicit sex during betrothal".

I do not appreciate being treating me like a child without any reasoning ability.

I thought we were having an adult conversation here. Are we not?
Am I treating you like a child simply by proving you wrong and trying to understand WHY you believe what you do?
Hardly.
You obviously have reasoning ability as you have drawn your conclusions.
I want to know if you drew them from websites pushing a specific doctrine, or if you drew your conclusions from Gods word and the historical facts.

Thats not treating you like your unintelligent, its asking what you sources are.

Please DO NOT CHIDE me for stating the truth you deny.

You mean the truth that Porneia is NOT ''illicit betrothal sex'' but ANY and ALL sexual immorality.....that its use in the WHOLE of the NT proves this conclusively.....that truth?

You have no authority over me,

Oh good grief, here we go with this stuff here as well.
No one is exerting any authoirty over you.
Stop posting if you dont like what I have to say.
If you post, and it is errant, expect me to respond
If you cant handle the response, DONT READ IT !!

and I DO NOT acknowledge your presentation as truth.

Who said you had to...surely not me.
If you choose to keep you faulty definition that porneia is unlawful sex ONLY during the betrothal year, that is up to you.
If you teach it and I have the posting ability to show that you are wrong, I will do so.

Intimidation does NOTHING to prove your stance.

Why is it that proving someone wrong always ends up either ''intimidating'' or ''belittling'' or ''whatever'' ?

You made assertions, I have shown them errant.
I was trying to understand WHY you believe what you do, it helps to know that so we can have a fruitful discussion.

MOST of the people I know believe very closely to what the persons who raised them do. It just happens.
They also will listen to people who are pushing doctrines that ''sound'' 100% correct and jump right on board with them and will never really, truly try to prove these folks wrong.

I have TWO mentors whom I trust.
Both of these men have been told that if they are teaching something that Doesnt line up perfectly with scripture, and they persist in it, that they will no longer be my mentor.

I have learned quite a bit from them, more than anyone else in the 20 years Ive been at this. But if one of them starts teaching something like ''you MUST speak in tongues'' or some other lie like that, then as much as I care about them, I will no longer put myself in subjection to them.

I asked what I did because I would hope that YOU would test every word that you have heard against Gods WHOLE word, not just a few proof texts.

Lets return to the topic at hand now so we dont get the mods upset at us.

Ill end with a little note from my site Im working on.

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)

I will ask you again to PROVE your assertions.
As you can see in the above I try to show WHY I believe what Id do, I dont just say something and then expect everyone to just accept it.

God bless

 

[Delicate]

Again, Follower- you prove nothing axcept an incredible ability to make scripture say what you want to hear. (Thank you for admitting your agenda, BTW.)

I have proven my stance, and in consideration of other readers here, I won't sound redundant. I WILL say AGAIN - Jesus defines adultry as remarriage after divorce (to someone other than the original spouse).

 

[follower of Christ]

Again, Follower- you prove nothing axcept an incredible ability to make scripture say what you want to hear.

Are you kidding?

You make comments like this..

The exception clause refers to the betrothal period which was binding but not consumated.

...completely dismissing the FACT that porneia is NOT limited to the betrothal period...and having been given proof of Acts 15 (did you bother to even check?) where Paul tells us to abstain from porneia.

are you claiming that Paul was ONLY telling us to abstain from unlawful sex during the betrothal year?

If so, I hope you, and everyone here, can see just how errant this doctrine is.

(Thank you for admitting your agenda, BTW.)

At least I admit it.

I have proven my stance,

I have asked you to prove you stance, you have not provided a single shred of evidence since I made that request.

On the other hand, I have posted evidence and included links to my site that provides even more evidence.

No, you HAVENT proven you stance.
You havent even tried to as far as I have seen.

and in consideration of other readers here, I won't sound redundant.

Then copy and paste for me or direct me to a post so I can refute it.
Your views on the meaning of porneia speak for themselves.

I WILL say AGAIN - Jesus defines adultry as remarriage after divorce (to someone other than the original spouse).

Did you forget the exception clause?


You will repeat it again and again you give not a single shred of evidence.

Your assertion that Matthew being written to Jews has been shown to be pointless, as well as your faulty definition of porneia.


-FACT: We all accept the exception clause....we have NO choice but to accept our Lords words.
-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). It is NOT exclusive to PREmartal sex (see Acts 15)
-FACT: Jesus did not distinguish ‘’engaged’’ in His exception clause, He clearly used the word for ‘’woman’’ or ‘’wife’’... Not ‘’betrothed’’...He said ''wife'' consumated or not.
Logical conclusion: divorce and remarriage when ANY sexual sin has been commited by either spouse is NOT adultery by our Lords own concession.


Porneia

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.

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 Paul's in Acts 15, that covers ALL sexual sin....whoredom.
We cannot divorce our spouse and remarry without committing adultery against that union, EXCEPT for any sexual sin.

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...ONLY PREmarital sex.
But then when we get to passages like Acts 15 with Paul, they pull the old switcharoo and make it ‘’any sexual sin’’ again.
Very convenient.

 

[follower of Christ]

Mrk 10:11-12 : Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another,
COMMITTETH ADULTRY AGAINST HER.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be
married to another, she committeth adultry.

Lk 16:18 : Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another,
committeth adultry: and whosoever marrieth her that is
put away from her husband, committeth adultry.

Recorded in 3 gospels, SAME message- plain and simple. In doing away with Moses' law, Jesus establishes HIS standard. The standard HE held from the beginning:

Just like my example of the account of the empty tomb, these 3 accounts are hardly the SAME.......are they?

You have absolutlye NO PROOF whatsoever, ANYWHERE, that the exception clause was spoken for Jews and their betrothal period.
It is never stated by Christ, nor any of His apostles.
And it surely doesnt fit the context of Jesus message.
The wording, nor any twist that can be put in the definitions of those words, back this assertion.

Jesus did not ''abrogate'' divorce or He would not have made ANY exceptions to it at all, would He?

It makes no sense whatsoever to state that our Lord would demand that a man would expect a VIRGIN at marriage, then turn around and let her be a WHORE for a wife for the next 40 years.

Does anyone else see the absurdity of this ?

No, Jesus wasnt refering to the betrothal period, if He had been He'd have spelled out ''betrothal'' or "espoused wife'' or something else to make it clear.

Marriage is for life.......EXCEPT if one is put away for whoredom.
Divorce and remarriage causes one to commit adultery .......EXCEPT for porneia.......ALL sexual sin commted by a marriage person

 

[Delicate]

message deleted (double)

 

[Delicate]

Again, go back through my posts, the Word of God stands on it's own- plain and simple without twisted misinterpretations.

I will never concede to your erroneous thinking, so I think we need to
agree to disagree. :wink:

 

[follower of Christ]

delicate....

Here is one reason why you are wrong when you say....

The exception clause refers to the betrothal period which was binding but not consumated.

So lets look at that exception clause.

And I say to you, that whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marrying a divorcee commits adultery."
(Mat 19:9)

Ok. so by YOUR definition method of interpretation that word fornication says ''except for unlawful sex during the betrothal year"

Now, words have MEANINGS sister, so lets keep the MEANINGS intact and apply that to other passages with fornication/porneia in them and see if they make sense, shall we?


Here Paul is listing only FOUR things for the gentile church to abstain from

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.

by YOUR restricted definition of porneia, Paul is ONLY telling them to abstain from ''unlawful sex during the betrothal year"

Porneia is a word sis, words have MEANINGS...

how about this one.

Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
(1Co 10:8)

so we're to believe that ALL these folks were having unlawful sex and ONLY those who were having ''unlawful sex during the betrothal year" fell?

and this one...

Here Paul is talking saying its better to be unmarried, but to avoid porneia, let each man and woman take a spouse.

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
(1Co 7:1-2)

But by your definition it says.
"to avoid 'unlawful sex during the betrothal year" let each man have his own wife"

Hint....sex with our betrothed ISNT fornication or unlawful. But it must be if YOUR defintion of porneia is correct.

Heres another...

1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

which under your rules of interpretation now says....

Flee unlawful sex during the betrothal year. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

heres a good one...

1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

which we now read as....

1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is unlawful sex during the betrothal year among you, and such unlawful sex during the betrothal yearas is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

did Paul restrict the meaning of the word....did Jesus?


yet another....

1Co 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

which becomes....

1Co 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for unlawful sex during the betrothal year, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

You see how this is going?

there are rules for interpretation that need to be followed.

You want to see something very interesting?

Break out you KJV bible and a concordance.
find EVERY instance of ''fornication'' and replace it with ''sexual sin'' or ''sexual immorality''......Including the exception clause.....and see if it doesnt shed LOT of light on this issue.

Ive not seen a single reputable scholar who restricts the meaing of porneia in the NT to "unlawful sex during the betrothal year"

Even those scholars I disagree with on doctrine know that the word Porneia is all inclusive of all sexual sin and immorality.
Jesus didnt specify ''espoused wife'' or ''during the betrothal year'' and neither are we to.

whoredom has always been a crime against the covenant and it always will be.
Instead of killing the whore now, we do as our Lord said and ''let him who has no sin cast the first stone'' at the adulteress..... we do as He has permtted and just divorce her leaving us free to remarry.

 

[follower of Christ]

Again, go back through my posts, the Word of God stands on it's own- plain and simple without twisted misinterpretations.

I will never concede to your erroneous thinking, so I think we need to
agree to disagree.

and that we will have to obviously.

but as long as you or anyone else is posting this doctrine and I still have my posting priviledges in here, expect me to come against your posts as adamantly as I have been.



and yes, Gods word stands on its own and is in perfect harmony when WE dont distort and twist words like porneia into to fit OUR doctrinal stance....when we just let them say what they mean.

You dont have to concede anything, but youve not shown a thing as far as my beng erroneous.
You present the same passages that all those of your doctrinal stance do, even tho they are have been shown to not be the whole picture.
Which is why the meaning of words like 'porneia' must change from passage to passage in order to make sense of things.

Porneia is all sexual sin.
Jesus didnt distinguish between pre and post consumation marriage, you all do that.
Jesus has not shown divorce and remarriage as sin when porneia has been committed.

Jesus said ''wife''.

Facts that show that even tho marriage was meant for life, just like the OT, the covenant is breached by sexual sin.
These days we dont kill the whoring spouse, we divorce them.

 

[Klee shay]

Jesus defines adultry as remarriage after divorce (to someone other than the original spouse).

Jesus also said that he has the power to forgive sins and make all things new. He said that his blood will wash clean any who come to him and believe. All sins can be forgiven by the Son except blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

All sins. Including divorce of an original spouse.

If the Lord revealed these scriptures to you about adultery, it was to inform you of the sacrement of matrimony. If you knew this before the first marriage ended, you would not have ended it right? Now that you have this knowledge however, you are free to repent, be forgiven by the Lord and made anew for the next holy matrimony, which you will have *FULL KNOWLEDGE* of next time.

It is alright to accept the Lord's scriptures on marriage, but it is also alright by the Lord if you ask his forgiveness for a sin you didn't know you were committing at the time. Repentence and the fruits of the spirit can only be shown once you take up his promise to start anew; and show that you are willing to live by his word *in the full knowledge* of his word; to respect the next marriage as he would have had you respect the first.

Take the example of David for example. He committed adultery with Basheeba, when she was already married to one of his Captains. The only reason God could forgive him is because David did an unthinkable thing. He had her husband killed, and it was his blood which cleansed David of his sin of adultery (and that of Basheebas).

Basheeba was then free to marry David and be right in the eyes of the Lord. We do not have to have our original husband's killed by our second husband, in order to make our marriages right to the Lord. That is what the blood of Jesus was spilled for. It is His blood which makes remarriage acceptable in the eyes of the Lord - so long as we use it wisely and repent against our original sin.

Choosing to apply *full knowledge* of the Lord's scripture on acceptable marriage to prevent remarriage, over choosing to apply *the blood of Jesus* to forgive a sin against an original marriage to allow remarriage, is anyone's choice.

Which will bear the most fruit however and demonstrate the power of our Lord's forgiveness while WE are still here on earth?

Remaining unwed simply proves that one can discern the Lord's words with the mind. Remarrying with the promise of Jesus however, proves that one can discern the Lord's words with the spirit. The life of Jesus was a complete work, but the lives of those who believe on him are incomplete. He works during our lives to finish that which he started. How can he however, when we refuse his forgiveness and the cleansing of his blood. He will still love us and save us, but our lives here will not have born the fruit it could have.

Does one trust the Lord's words without the Spirit to interpret? Or does one trust the Lord's words by living in the truth of his Spirit. Forgiveness can achieve far more than obedience. For the repentent man is in more need of a saviour than one who spends their lives avoiding the need to repent.

Jesus will use the repentent man over the one avoiding sin, for a man who is forgiven has more power to testify of the Lord's mercy and love - than those who chose not to call upon Him through finding obedience in the scriptures. Those who choose only to be obedient to scripture can only bear fruit of obedience. They cannot bear the fruit of the Lord's forgiveness and why he *needs* to be mankind's saviour.

 

[Delicate]

Hi Klee Shay,

I understand your train of thought- for awhile, it was my thought as well. I agree that Jesus has power to forgive sins, and He does. But to say we can go on in the same old sin after expressing remorse is to deny the power of God unto repentance.

Jesus DID define adultry as remarriage while the original covenant spouse lives- for as long as that one lives, to remarry is to commit adultry against the covenant spouse.

If the Lord revealed these scriptures to you about adultery, it was to inform you of the sacrement of matrimony. If you knew this before the first marriage ended, you would not have ended it right? Now that you have this knowledge however, you are free to repent, be forgiven by the Lord and made anew for the next holy matrimony, which you will have *FULL KNOWLEDGE* of next time.

Disagree completely. In my life personally, the Lord revealed this to me at a time I was in business contact with a divorced man ('the innocent party') several years after my husbands death. The relationship was moving in a way that caused alot of red flags in me. I sought the Lord out on this, and have ended the relationship because it is clear to me that this relationship, with this man would be adultrous, according to scripture.

Forgiveness can achieve far more than obedience.

Agree, Jesus forgives. He also supplies power to overcome the sin- to repent. Repentance is defined as, a change of mind, of direction. Again, to go on in sin, is to deny the power of God to STOP the sin. We are called to be overcomers, where is there any victory in continued sin? Actually, we DENY the blood of the Lord, if we refuse His power to overcome sin. According to Hebrews, 'there remains no more sacrifice' .

Jesus said, 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments'. We prove our love for the Lord BY OUR OBEDIENCE. Be careful on this one- it is absolute heresy to think we can go on in sin.

 

[follower of Christ]

Hi Klee Shay,

I understand your train of thought- for awhile, it was my thought as well. I agree that Jesus has power to forgive sins, and He does. But to say we can go on in the same old sin after expressing remorse is to deny the power of God unto repentance.

See. Klee Shay ....THIS is why we cannot concede to sin that which is not sin.
Youll just be told you need to repent and STOP committing the sin.
If you dont, then youre not really sorry.

Jesus has not shown that divorce and remarriage for porneia is sin.

Jesus DID define adultry as remarriage while the original covenant spouse lives- for as long as that one lives, to remarry is to commit adultry against the covenant spouse.

EXCEPT for porneia.

Did Jesus LIE in Matthew when He says ''except for whoredom'' or not?
If not, the REmarriage is NOT sin when divorce is for porneia.

Disagree completely. In my life personally, the Lord revealed this to me at a time I was in business contact with a divorced man ('the innocent party') several years after my husbands death.

And it was revealed to me that divorce and remarriage was NOT sin, even before I was ever seriously dating anyone.....and surely well before I was ever married.
So who did the Lord show correctly?

Agree, Jesus forgives. He also supplies power to overcome the sin- to repent. Repentance is defined as, a change of mind, of direction. Again, to go on in sin, is to deny the power of God to STOP the sin. We are called to be overcomers, where is there any victory in continued sin? Actually, we DENY the blood of the Lord, if we refuse His power to overcome sin. According to Hebrews, 'there remains no more sacrifice' .

Jesus said, 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments'. We prove our love for the Lord BY OUR OBEDIENCE. Be careful on this one- it is absolute heresy to think we can go on in sin.

Klee shay...if and when you see this....this is what I was refering to.
See the twist here?
Now we're bringin in entirley UNRELATED passages from Hebrews concerning willful APOSTACY and applying them to someone who is remarried.

So now if you remain with your second godly, christian wife of 20 years and were previously divorced because your first wife was a whore who deserted you after 2 months of marriage when you were 18, you now have ''no more sacrifice'' covering your sins and are going to hell.

Now do you see why I am so ''die hard'' about this issue?

Delicate.
You are bringing in OUT OF CONTEXT scripture to try to prove your case.
That Hebrews passage is about willful apostacy, not divorcing and remarrying over sexual sin, which has been Excepted by our Lord in Matthew.

Also, you CANNOT prove that being remarried is ONGOING sin as you all assert. It is debatable at best.

 

[Delicate]

You are bringing in OUT OF CONTEXT scripture to try to prove your case.
That Hebrews passage is about willful apostacy, not divorcing and remarrying over sexual sin, which has been Excepted by our Lord in Matthew.

You are wrong FOC, on several counts.

1) I am NOT misquoting, in light of the fact that Jesus states that IF YOU LOVE HIM, YOU WILL OBEY HIM. To go our willfull way, inspite of His known truth, IS willfull apostasy, wouldn't you say?

2) I am simply showing what Jesus HIIMSELF has taught- WHEN will you acknowledge the simple meaning, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultry... vs 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commitheth adultry.

3)AGAIN- YOU PUT WORDS IN MY NOUTH I NEVER SAID. I suggest, for the sake of a fair debate- you stop this

I DID NOT say divorce and remarriage are the topic of Hebrews- BUT RATHER WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE.

Also, you CANNOT prove that being remarried is ONGOING sin as you all assert. It is debatable at best

Seems to me in Romans 7:3- the word 'adulteress' denotes an ongoing LIFESTYLE. Something to consider...