Mods...
Please bear with me, Im losing it here reading some of the links in the first link provided, and as I read Im seeing things that need to be presented.
Heres a dandy....almost choked up my soda.....
Heres what they say on this one....
Undoubtedly Matthew had the Jewish wedding custom in mind. When a young man wanted to marry a girl, he traveled to the house of the prospective bride, negotiated a price for the girl, established a covenant of betrothal--and then returned to his father's house for a period of about twelve months.
The betrothed bride and groom were called "husband" and "wife" even though there was still no physical union. The marriage ceremony (and physical union) only occurred after the twelve-month period of separation.
And the exception clause found at two places in Matthew refers not to a marriage divorce, but to a betrothal divorce. If the young man discovered that his prospective bride had been unfaithful during the period of betrothal, he could return her to her father with a paper of divorcement.
The exception clause was not included in Mark and Luke because Greek and Roman marriage customs did not recognize the betrothal provision, and so it was not necessary for them to even mention the exception. Notice however, in the exception clause, that the word is "fornication" (not "adultery"). Fornication speaks of sexual relations between two unmarried people. There are times in the Scriptures when "fornication" is used to speak of all illicit relationships, but notice that in this particular portion of Scripture, the words "fornication" and "adultery" are used in contrast with each other (in the same setting), and when that happens in the Greek language, the two words cannot mean the same thing. So we find that what Jesus is saying here is not that divorce and remarriage are okay if sexual unfaithfulness has developed after marriage--but what Jesus is clearly saying--is that the engagement can be broken if sexual unfaithfulness has happened during the betrothal period. This is the provision that Joseph was going to use when he discovered that Mary was expecting a child (See Matthew 1:18-20). So we find that Jesus, in this first (so called) loophole, is not making room for divorce and remarriage after the marriage has been consummated (if there has been sexual unfaithfulness), but the exception is a provision for the breaking of an engagement (if sexual immorality has occurred).
http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1989v24n4.htm
That one is a work of art.
The man and woman are still "called'' husband and wife, even tho, obviously this gent states they are not when he says.....
"So we find that what Jesus is saying here is not that divorce and remarriage are okay if sexual unfaithfulness has developed after marriage--but what Jesus is clearly saying--is that the engagement can be broken if sexual unfaithfulness has happened during the betrothal period
What is funny here is this guy calls the betrothal period ''engagement''.
This should show the serious student that this chap doesnt know the first thing about what he is speaking of, betrothal was nothing like our casual engagements.
but what is hilarious is his next point.
This is the provision that Joseph was going to use when he discovered that Mary was expecting a child (See Matthew 1:18-20)
This guy states that betrothal is pretty much our ''engagement'' which in his mind means that Mary and Joe arent ''married'' yet, but only ''engaged''.
Now let me ask, was our Lord born illegitimate?
Would our heavenly FAther have permitted His Son to be born OUT of wedlock to and ''engaged'' mother with no husband so He could be called 'illegitimate'' by the Jews on top of every other thing they called Him?
Hardly.
So heres what this chap is stating.
Betrothal is ''engaged'' NOT married.
Joe was allowed to ''put away'' Mary for committing ''fornication" (he says is PREmarital sex).
(readers, please see Deut 22:16-24... the law stated Mary was to be put to death if she had sex with another while betrothed, not ''put away'' as some falsely state)
In saying that Joe and Mary ARENT married but ''engaged'', this man MUST admit that Jesus will be born WITHOUT a lawful father, and as such will NOT be in Josephs lineage (He wasnt Joes biological child, the only way for Jesus to be in it was for the Jews to believe that He WAS Joes Son, which they did believe for the most part)
I spoke on this very topic in my website.
An interesting point is that if a woman isnt the lawful ‘’wife’’ of her husband during the betrothal year, that would mean that Jesus would have been illegitimate having not been born with both a father and mother who were lawfully married.
If Mary wasnt Josephs lawful ''wife'' when Jesus was born that would make Him illegitimate.
*IF* Mary wasnt Josephs lawful WIFE, the Jews would have made Jesus and Marys life hell over it....Jesus being a ''messiah'' and born to a woman who was not ''married'' lawfully.
Knowing anything about the pharisees at all shows us that they would have been pointing this out first and foremost if Jesus was born out of wedlock.
Mary would have been put to trial as well if she wasn’t Josephs LAWFUL COVENANT WIFE.
We might think a woman could go unnoticed in this matter normally, but certainly the popularity of her Son would have drawn the phasees attention to her ''unmarried with child'' status.
Mary was Josephs LAWFUL wife. That is scriptural and cultural fact.
<>
and yet another misleading site.
It states....
In those cases where the husband who has just taken a wife found that his wife was not a virgin,
Moses authorized divorcement.
In such cases the husband would find himself married to a woman who was guilty of fornication, and it shows that the divorce precept of Moses was exactly what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:9. And it shows that the divorce precept of Moses recognized fornication only as ground for divorce. Not even adultery was, under a strict interpretation, recognized in the law of Moses as ground for divorce.
http://members.aol.com/dwibclc/divorce1.htm
Moses authorized divorcement is in reference to deut 24:1-4 obviously.
Again, readers, see Deut 22:16-24.
The punishment for finding ones betrothed to not be a virgin was DEATH, not putting away.
This writer is twisting the Deut 24 passage from ''uncleaness'', which would have been anything (altho the original plan was not this way as Jesus has shown) the man found EXCEPT sexual sins....those incurred the death penalty, NOT putting away.
Deut 24:1-4 had NOTHING to do with sexual sin, the punishment for that was already in the LAW in chapt 22 of Deut as shown clearly.
Moses wrote Deut 24, not as a permission to put away for putting away was already being done, but as a REGULATION for putting away (she cannot return once remarried; and, he MUST give her a bill of divorcement) for the protection of the innocent wife.
This writer is twisting deut 24 to mirror Jesus intent in Matt. to make his doctrine work.
But we see he is false...as the judgement for those sexual sins by a betrothed were already laid out 2 chapters before.
This statement is an outright lie....
In those cases where the husband who has just taken a wife found that his wife was not a virgin, Moses authorized divorcement.
Read Deut 22, those verses I quoted, Moses didnt authorized divorcement for her not being a virgin, he authorized DEATH !!!
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
(Deu 22:20-21)
This is just another typical deception for this doctrine.
Another wonderful error from that site.
Fornication and Adultery, the Difference
........The words fornication and adultery are synonymous in their primary meaning, both words naming unlawful relations of male and female. But the meaning of the two words diverge from their common point of synonymy to a difference which few students and almost no casual reader of the Bible have considered......
My translation of this line is ''theyre the same, but let ME tell you why they have to be different"
Now look at this wonderful little comment...
Fornication is the sin of an unmarried person as previously stated, and in our study of the Scriptures on the subject we must remember this fact in every case where the word is used.
''fornication'' according to THEIR study is ONLY the sexual sin of the UNmarried.
Now keep in mind he has just stated this is in EVERY case the word is used.
So lets look at some uses of the word ''fornication'', shall we ?
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Act 15:19-20)
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 15:29)
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.
(Act 21:25)
Four things given to the gentile church to abstain from.
Was the council of Jerusalem ONLY prohibiting PREmarital sexual immorality ?
That would be absurdity at its finest.
No, the word means ALL sexual immorality.
Which is why it was chosen in Acts there. To warn us to stay away from ALL sexual sin.
The difference between PORNEIA (the word that was used) and adultery, is that porneia is any sexual sin committed by anyone, married or not.
Adultery is a crime against the marriage covenant that is committed when porneia has been committed by a married person.
The word porneia (as fornication) is presented many times in the NT.
A few times it is presented alone, as above, to warn against ALL sexual immorality.
To say that it doesnt include the married person, is to state that in some passages ONLY premarital sexual sin is being warned of.
See these....
For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
(1Th 4:2-5)
<>
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: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
(Col 3:4-10)
<>
Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
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 5:1-5)
<>
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
(1Co 6:15-18)
Are we to assume Paul is ONLY speaking to UNmarried persons in these?
hardly.
Heres something to try.
When you see ''fornication'' in your KJV bibles, replace the word ''fornication'' each time with "whoredom'' or ''sexual immorality'' and see if it doesnt fit perfectly every single time....keeping in mind that it is speaking of ALL sexual immorality, married or not.
Adultery doesnt always fit because sometimes Paul IS speaking to the unmarried, and adultery wouldnt apply as there is no marriage covenant to breach.
Adultery is mentioned separately in a couple passages, but that doesnt change the MEANING of the word Porneia (fornication in the KJV).
Adultery is mentioned specifically most likely as it is a spedific crime agianst the marriage covenant that is treacherous in nature.
While both are sin, even under the law, a man who had sex with a unbetrothed virgin only had to marry her and could never put her away (Deut 22:28-29)
If betrothed/married though, this crime was punishable by death as it was a terrible crime.
This probably shows Paul would mention porneia and adultery in the same passage a couple times.
But, as we have seen, calling fornicaiton PREmarital sex makes too many passages overlook sexual sin of married persons when they cannot be being left out (Acts 15 and Acts 21 firstly)
