quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

quote:

Not true......

which part?

Are you saying if I am having an affair with a married man and I have never been married before... that I am not committing adultery?

quote:

Actually no, it translates as present tense and a singular act.

quote:

Sex between a unmarried person and a divorced person would be defined as fornication, not adultery. per the greek lexicon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

quote:

Actually no, it translates as present tense and a singular act.

Why does Romans 7 say she will be an adulteress as long as her husband lives if she is married to another? And 1Cor7:39 says we are bound for life and free to marry another when our spouse dies? Why the command right before that to remain unmarried 1cor7:10-11?

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

quote:

Sex between a unmarried person and a divorced person would be defined as fornication, not adultery. per the greek lexicon.

That is my point..... Jesus says "ANYONE who marries a divorced person commits adultery." which includes never married before people marrying divorced people.

JESUS Himself defines it as ADULTERY- not fornication. This proves that the "divorced" is not really "divorced" in His eyes because it is adultery for them to be with another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

quote:

Additionally, the proposition that you put forth that the law only applied if the woman remarried, but not if the man remarried stands in contradiction to even the very oldest commentaries we have on this passage i.e. those going back to the time of Christ.

We can go all the way back and see that the men who canonized the Bible believed that marriage was permanent, and they did not agree with your conclusions about remarriage.

quote:

Nor did they agree with yours!

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

quote:

Nor did they agree with yours!

They did see it as a permanent covenant broken by death,

quote:


and saw remarriage as a continuous state of adultery.

quote:

They didn't believe that a remarried person would go to Hell, nor they didn't believe that a remarried person should divorce.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.progress

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.progress

quote:

ORIGINAL: DenimDiva

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
God's Word - A remarried spouse must NOT return to their former spouse

"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That wold be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance." Du. 24:1-4

There is a clear choice here: Either follow God's word, or follow those here who try and distort it!

I know of a Christian couple who were married. He divorced her for another woman. Married the other woman and had a child together. His original wife kept praying for him to return to her. He did eventually and they remarried. Is their marriage Biblical or not?

To those that use the passage from Deut. 24 to try to claim it is wrong to return to their first wife or husband:

This is ONE of the problems with the (to coin my own buzz-word) anti-TRUE re-marriage 'crowd': They either don't know how to conduct a diligent and thorough search of the scriptures on at least this particular subject; or else they refuse to - and/or both. And the reason for this, the scriptures instruct me, is due to several factors, which I'll not elaborate upon here. Only to remind one and all that Paul, Peter and others warned of such things taking place in the latter times among the "many" in professing Christendom...and of course, you on the 'other side' are free to apply this to me and 'my' so-called 'side'.

But take note that, it is majority (the "many") in this latter time, who hold to the popular view); a view promoted and popularized by many teachers today within professing Christendom, which claims that God "promises" a "liberty" to do that which, I (as one that holds and contends for a very minority and ancient 'view'), deny such a 'liberty' exists let alone is 'promised' via the allged 'exception clauses'. As it contradicts - that is, it is contrary to sound speech, the sound speech of Christ and his apostles and the prophets of old. Who all have left, at least to *me, sure words [the scripture of truth; the holy scriptures] to search out to find and learn to discern between the "good and evil", the "holy and the profane", the "clean and the unclean", and those that "serve God" and those that do not, inspite of their claims (*Not excluding others of course - but I speak for myself only in this specific thing).

The passage in Duet.24 - if it still did apply today (since Christ's words in Mat.19) - still does not apply to men who put away their wives (the wife of their youth) AND THEIR WIVE DID NOT AS YET MARRY ANOTHER. Those men may and ought to repent of their sin in putting away their lawful first wife and their sin of then lusting after and 'marrying' another - which legal 'marriages' Christ called adultery; and then ought to reconcile with their wife...if their wife has the tender heart she ought to have maintained in Christ to receive her husband again. Do you allow for this? Do you see that Deut.24 does not apply to this scenario?

There's more to see here, but have to go.

Note also: My bravo, earlier in another post was for defending the truth of suffering is part of the life of the believer - NOT as an uncaring retort for any one's personal suffering. Please, let none think me so cruel, brutish or dull witted to think or say such a thing. Wives who trust in God will learn to not fear what man can do to them...but it is a learning process to be sure - sometimes the lesson needs to be learned very quickly though.

But the example given was of a couple who had divorced, the husband did remarry, the husband then divorced again to remarry his former spouse. It is exactly the scenario spoken of and prohibited in Du. 24

Perhaps. But I am speaking to the error - and forgive me for saying this, but it is true - and the sloppy thinking that fails to clarify that Deut. 24 - again if even for today (which I see if any of the law was done away with, Moses's precept was one of them) - cannot be applied to the scenario I laid out in my other post; nor would it apply to others I did not get into.

Deut 24:1-4 ONLY addressed or allowed, for that time, the hardhearted husbands among the chilldren of Israel to "put away" their wives; and then she if she married again, she would not be subject to the laws against adultery, being protected by the document he was "to give in her hand" stating his divorcement of her from him; and how she would not be subject to being taken again by him, her first (and real husband).

By the way, the "uncleanness" he found "in her" was not adultery, fornication or anything of that sort of sexual nature - although the word for 'uncleanness' there as well as 'unclean' in Deut. 23:14 means nakedness, nudity, shame and pudenda (implying shameful exposure). Rather, it speaks of the kind of shame that comes from being seen, if seen when exposing oneself to "ease" oneself of bodily waste, as in the woods; such is the meaning of ervah, the Hebrew word for "unclean" and "uncleanness" in these two passages in Deut. 23 & 24. Otherwise if it meant adultery or fornication, she would be certainly found guilty of these, and put to death, according to the command of God.

So you may be right or are right about what you say, when you say, "But the example given was of a couple who had divorced, the husband did remarry, the husband then divorced again to remarry his former spouse. It is exactly the scenario spoken of and prohibited in Du. 24"

But you don't say here that the wife married another as well. So it is not the same...exactly the same scenario spelled out in the Deut.24 prohibition against a husband taking his wife back after putting her away.

If that be the case regarding who you are referring to, then it is certain that Deut. 24 DOES NOT apply to them. And so it is folly to think it does and attempt to apply this passage to such a scenario - again, if Deut.24 were applicable at all since Christ's words in Mat.19.

Now perhaps you failed to mention that the wife ALSO had "married another" afterwards.


Yet it is clear from the word of God that if she did "marry another", after being put away from her husband - her first and lawful [God's Law] husband; that both she and her new 'husband' would be guilty of adultery - according to the words of Christ, who I trust to be more gracious and merciful than either you or me or anyone we both know or have heard of to date.

Actually the question is not what 'ervah' means, but what does the construct 'ervat devar' mean and defining this has been something debated for several thousand years. Here is a link where I discussed this almost a year ago.

Additionally, the proposition that you put forth that the law only applied if the woman remarried, but not if the man remarried stands in contradiction to even the very oldest commentaries we have on this passage i.e. those going back to the time of Christ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

quote:

They didn't believe that a remarried person would go to Hell, nor they didn't believe that a remarried person should divorce.

They didn't believe that a "remarried" person was married to the person they were with, so they would have no reason to address divorce. They saw them as committing adultery against their true spouse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatHarris

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatHarris

After a little studying I have some questions. Serious questions, not just for the sake of argument.

In Jesus saying that fornication was the exception for divorce, is it possible he didn't say adultery because adultery carried the penalty of death. So any adultery committed would in fact if that person was stoned cause an end to the marriage. Hope that made sense.

First you must look at the context of the statement:

Matthew 19: 3-6 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

The Pharisees asked Jesus if divorce was ever allowable, and He surprised them by going back to Genesis and proving that divorce of fully married couples is never permitted by God who joins the two into one flesh, and adds that since He has joined us for life we cannot separate that union PERIOD! The entire pretext that God allows divorce and remarriage is refuted by Jesus immediately when the Pharisees ask Him the question, because His answer was an unequivocal NO! ...

Here's my point, I came home pulled out my Bible, concordances, etc... and read the passages and looked up the words. Honestly put some effort into studying what you said.

You never answered my questions directly, instead choosing to insinuate that we are still looking for loopholes. You'll have to take my word for it I wasn't.

Patrick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatHarris

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

That is my point..... Jesus says "ANYONE who marries a divorced person commits adultery." which includes never married before people marrying divorced people.

JESUS Himself defines it as ADULTERY- not fornication. This proves that the "divorced" is not really "divorced" in His eyes because it is adultery for them to be with another.

Still doesn't make it a continuous act of adultery.....

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

Marrieth - singular
committeth - singular

quote:

ORIGINAL: DenimDiva

benelchi- who is the covenant spouse in a marriage, divorce and remarriage situation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DenimDiva

benelchi- who is the covenant spouse in a marriage, divorce and remarriage situation?

The Short answer is the one to whom you are NOW married., now matter how you got there. Breaking the cycling of sin should begin where you are right now today, and divorce shouldn't be looked at as an option in any marriage.

This is one area where car2ner disagree a bit. I believe that every marriage, including marriages of unbelievers, and marriages that came about do to the sinful choices of those who entered it are covenant marriages, and when a divorce happens in any marriage it was wrong and the result of sin by at least one of the spouses, and likely both. I do believe the bible gives us guidelines for divorce and remarriage, but I believe the bar is set far higher for a biblical divorce than most are willing to acknowledge. I believe that when a divorce does happen that the door should be left open for reconciliation for as long as that is a still possibility, and probably quite a bit longer; that would mean that even an innocent spouse should not be doing anything that would hinder reconciliation, and they absolutely should not dating someone else. The continuous marry - divorce - date - marry cycle that is so prevalent in our culture today is indicative of ungodliness.

One of the things that those who push "no remarriage ever" seem to really confuse is the idea that God's grace and forgiveness equals his acceptance and approval. God does forgive those who have divorced unbiblically, and he does forgive those who remarry unbiblically, but that does NOT mean he approves of their sinful actions. I do believe that God can heal the marriages of those which began in complete sin, and in complete rebellion against God if both spouses truly repent and really turn to God for help; however, I do believe that they will suffer consequences in their marriage that will make a healthy marriage far more difficult, but not impossible. Also it should be remembered that deliberately choosing to marry while knowing it is sinful to do so reflects a heart that is very hard against God; those who do so with the "intention" of repenting later usually never do so.

For those who would try to make this an issue of "cheep grace", it should be remembered that Paul addressed this quite clearly:

"The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" Ro. 5:20-6:3

quote:

ORIGINAL: car2ner

I can't speak for Belenchi but it does amaze me that the "covenant marriage" is more about it's placement on a time-line than it's being in God's will.

If someone pairs up outside of God's will (sinful) and neither have been married before, somehow it becomes a covenant marriage and to be maintained against all odds. Somehow that just doesn't seem right. That is why I don't think that this is such a black and white issue.

BTW> I think that the old excuse of "God just didn't want us to get married" is way to often just that, an excuse. I do agree with the other side that too many couples give up that shouldn't.<

&

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

"I have to trust that God in his wisdom has provided sufficient 'help' and 'counsel' in the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide the obedient and honest seeker into all truth."


You spent most of your post simply trying to attack me with statements like "your scholarly-ship-ness", intimating that I had called you a "pion" when I had not, etc.. These are not the fruits of a "obedient and honest seeker".


As far as defining a construct. 'ervah' i.e. 'indecency' is the noun in it's normal state 'ervat' is the same noun in its construct state i.e 'indecency of' and cannot stand alone, it is always connected to the noun following it. In this case it is 'ervat devar' or 'indecency of a thing'. This construct is used only twice and it is recognized as an Hebrew idiom. An idiom is a phrase that does not mean what the words alone would define it to mean i.e when we say that "the old man kicked the bucket" we really mean "he died". Looking up the definition of "kicked" or the definition of "bucket" in a dictionary will not help us to understand what these words meant. Recognizing constructs that influence the meaning of the individual words is important for any translator, failing to do so will always result in a very bad translation.

For early references to how Du. 24:1-4 was understood in the first century by the Jewish people, look in the Mishnah for the arguments between Hillel and Shamai.

As far as the references to the early church go, most were made in response to the fallacious claims made by those on this board pushing the "no remarriage ever" viewpoint that the early church was in complete agreement with their position. This simply is a mis-characterization of what the early church believed, and the quotes and references I made were to address claims previously made that were untrue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.progress

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

"I have to trust that God in his wisdom has provided sufficient 'help' and 'counsel' in the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide the obedient and honest seeker into all truth."


You spent most of your post simply trying to attack me with statements like "your scholarly-ship-ness", intimating that I had called you a "pion" when I had not, etc.. These are not the fruits of a "obedient and honest seeker".


As far as defining a construct. 'ervah' i.e. 'indecency' is the noun in it's normal state 'ervat' is the same noun in its construct state i.e 'indecency of' and cannot stand alone, it is always connected to the noun following it. In this case it is 'ervat devar' or 'indecency of a thing'. This construct is used only twice and it is recognized as an Hebrew idiom. An idiom is a phrase that does not mean what the words alone would define it to mean i.e when we say that "the old man kicked the bucket" we really mean "he died". Looking up the definition of "kicked" or the definition of "bucket" in a dictionary will not help us to understand what these words meant. Recognizing constructs that influence the meaning of the individual words is important for any translator, failing to do so will always result in a very bad translation.

For early references to how Du. 24:1-4 was understood in the first century by the Jewish people, look in the Mishnah for the arguments between Hillel and Shamai.

As far as the references to the early church go, most were made in response to the fallacious claims made by those on this board pushing the "no remarriage ever" viewpoint that the early church was in complete agreement with their position. This simply is a mis-characterization of what the early church believed, and the quotes and references I made were to address claims previously made that were untrue.

"You spent most of your post simply trying to attack me..."

You said I "spent MOST of" my "post...trying to attack" you? Go back and reread my post and count up the total amount of words spoken, subtract what I DID NOT SAY in my 'attacks' of you; then tell us all again how I spent MOST of my time in the post to 'attack' you. Oh well, we all make overstatements at times, I suppose. You are no different.



"...with statements like "your scholarly-ship-ness", intimating that I had called you a "pion" when I had not, etc.."

The phrase I used, I coined , as I didn't at the time know how else to express what I meant to convey.

And Benelchi, you might not want to admit it or even realize how you have come across yourself at times. I might be wrong here, but perhpas more times than I am aware of in this forum (I haven't paid much attention to your posts before, and don't follow this very closely) you have in at least SOME of the few times I have read your posts, appear to come across as being or thinking that you are an expert of some degree, in not only the Hebrew and/or Greek language (and perhaps you are, I don't know you), but an expert in the writings of the so-called 'early church fathers' as well. And it is this seemingly implied 'scholarly-ship-ness' (to use my word here) that I am highlighting. As I would like to meet one of your kind (sorry if you are offended that I group you in here) that would stop all the 'fancy' talk and just answer the questions posted to them with 'line upon line' reasoning.


And IF you 'feel' the need or compulsion to draw from some extra-biblical source - then do so attaching to IT THEN an 'easy' reference guide for us peons (MY CHOICE of terminology to call myself in contrast to those who love to be thought of as the 'experts'), so we can take you seriously...and THAT MEANS, readily go and READ the same 'source material' and the specific places within those 'source materials' you claim to be quoting or alluding to in your defence of your claims. Not that you personally are attempting to do this; but I found out a very, very long time ago that this is a tactic used by the 'experts' to bamboozal the rank and file, peons - the so-called 'lay people' into thinking that they need to just trust and follow what they are told, as they can't apparently trust that God could reveal the truth to them otherwise. To me, that is what the Protestants/Evangelicals have been accusing the Roman Catholics of doing via accussing them of hiding the truth from the people through the use of a unbiblical priesthood; speaking in an hidden language (Latin), claiming the Scriptures can only be rightly understood as the 'Church' interpretes it.

Provide the source material or just keep all that 'stuff' to yourself. I say this as well to any fellow peon that tries to match the wits of the scholar on his own terf. Don't just make unsupported claims about what the so-called 'early church father's' have alleged to have said, or believed or taught or understood about this or that - cite the resources so the average joe can read these for himself; or just stick to appealing to the scriptures. There's plenty of disagreement there all by its self. Of course all are free to disregard this...this isen't my website. But don't waste your time posting to me things that you won't support by clear references outside the unaddressed quotes from Scripture - those I can search out easily on my own, with a minimum time investment.




"These are not the fruits of a "obedient and honest seeker."

Well you wrongly accuse me of what you now condemn and judge me failing to manifest the fruits of. Fine have at it. Just address EVERYTHING THAT my post was directed at about your statements. Try again please.

quote:

I do believe that God can heal the marriages of those which began in complete sin, and in complete rebellion against God if both spouses truly repent and really turn to God for help; however, I do believe that they will suffer consequences in their marriage that will make a healthy marriage far more difficult, but not impossible. Also it should be remembered that deliberately choosing to marry while knowing it is sinful to do so reflects a heart that is very hard against God; those who do so with the "intention" of repenting later usually never do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: car2ner

quote:

I do believe that God can heal the marriages of those which began in complete sin, and in complete rebellion against God if both spouses truly repent and really turn to God for help; however, I do believe that they will suffer consequences in their marriage that will make a healthy marriage far more difficult, but not impossible. Also it should be remembered that deliberately choosing to marry while knowing it is sinful to do so reflects a heart that is very hard against God; those who do so with the "intention" of repenting later usually never do so.

I agree with this as well. I would never put Somone who created the entire universe and probably more, into a box! Two messed up heathens totally out of God's will can turn their lives around and have a good marriage with God's help. The thing is, they really have to want to let God take over. And God, in His foreknowledge, knows who will and who won't. But that is the topic of another thread.