|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/17/2008 6:54:52 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 1081
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
from Joseph Webb’s book, Divorce and Remarriage: The Trojan Horse within the Church
__________________________________________________________
Jerome (A.D. 396) was a great Father and Doctor of the early Church whose most important work was the translation of the Bible into Latin. He wrote works defending the Church from Jovinian, Vigilantius and Pelagianism heretics that were threatening the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Jerome taught:
Divorce and remarriage was forbidden. Christians must stop making excuses and stop trying to find justification for divorce and remarriage. None of it stands before God and must not be considered at all when applying the Word of God in the Church or to our lives. A marriage is for life, and no matter what a spouse turns out to be, or how they act, or the sins they commit, the covenant remains fully in effect. God does not divide the one flesh relationship. A spouse that is separated or divorced for any reason, no matter what their circumstances are is still bound to the marriage covenant and cannot be remarried to another as long as both live.
Here is an excerpt from Jerome’s letters. Here he also gives reference to the fact that they believed in leaving an adulterous remarriage as true repentance.
"I find joined to your letter of inquiries a short paper containing the following words: “ask him, whether a woman who had left her husband on the ground that he is an adulterer and has found herself compelled to take another may in the lifetime of him whom she first left be in communion with the church without doing penance for her fault” As I read the case put I recall the verse “they make excuses for their sins”.
Tell the sister concerning her condition, not my sentence but that of the apostle…. And he quotes Romans 7:2-3. The apostle does not promulgate this decree on his own authority but on that of Christ who speaks in him. For he has followed the words of Christ in the gospel: “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Mark what he says: “whosover shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” Whether she has put away her husband or her husband her, the man who marries her is still an adulterer.”
I have not been able to quite determine what it is that she means by the words “has found herself compelled to marry again” What is this compulsion of which she speaks? Was she over borne by a crowd and ravished against her will? If so, why has she not thus victimized, subsequently put away her ravisher? Let her read the books of Moses and she will find that if violence is offered to a betrothed virgin in a city and she does not cry out, she is punished as an adulteress: but if she is forced in the field, she is innocent of sin and her ravisher alone is amenable to the laws. Therefore if your sister, who, as she says, has been forced into a second union, wishes to receive the body of Christ and not be counted an adulteress, let her do penance; so far at least as from the time she begins to repent to have no further intercourse with that second husband who ought to be called not a husband but an adulterer.
If this seems too hard to her and if she cannot leave one whom she has once loved and will not prefer the Lord to sensual pleasure, let her hear the declaration of the apostle: “ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils, and in another place: what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?"
(Letters 55,58)
For more on what the earliest church taught:
http://www.marriagedivorce.com/mdebook.pdf
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 6/17/2008 7:25:31 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/17/2008 7:20:20 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2547
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
quoted from Joseph Webb’s book, Divorce and Remarriage: The Trojan Horse within the Church
Jerome (A.D. 396) was a great Father and Doctor of the early Church whose most important work was the translation of the Bible into Latin. He wrote works defending the Church from Jovinian, Vigilantius and Pelagianism heretics that were threatening the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Jerome taught:
Divorce and remarriage was forbidden. Christians must stop making excuses and stop trying to find justification for divorce and remarriage. None of it stands before God and must not be considered at all when applying the Word of God in the Church or to our lives. A marriage is for life, and no matter what a spouse turns out to be, or how they act, or the sins they commit, the covenant remains fully in effect. God does not divide the one flesh relationship. A spouse that is separated or divorced for any reason, no matter what their circumstances are is still bound to the marriage covenant and cannot be remarried to another as long as both live.
Here is an excerpt from Jerome’s letters. Here he also gives reference to the fact that they believed in leaving an adulterous remarriage as true repentance.
"I find joined to your letter of inquiries a short paper containing the following words: “ask him, whether a woman who had left her husband on the ground that he is an adulterer and has found herself compelled to take another may in the lifetime of him whom she first left be in communion with the church without doing penance for her fault” As I read the case put I recall the verse “they make excuses for their sins”.
Tell the sister concerning her condition, not my sentence but that of the apostle…. And he quotes Romans 7:2-3. The apostle does not promulgate this decree on his own authority but on that of Christ who speaks in him. For he has followed the words of Christ in the gospel: “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Mark what he says: “whosover shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” Whether she has put away her husband or her husband her, the man who marries her is still an adulterer.”
I have not been able to quite determine what it is that she means by the words “has found herself compelled to marry again” What is this compulsion of which she speaks? Was she over borne by a crowd and ravished against her will? If so, why has she not thus victimized, subsequently put away her ravisher? Let her read the books of Moses and she will find that if violence is offered to a betrothed virgin in a city and she does not cry out, she is punished as an adulteress: but if she is forced in the field, she is innocent of sin and her ravisher alone is amenable to the laws. Therefore if your sister, who, as she says, has been forced into a second union, wishes to receive the body of Christ and not be counted an adulteress, let her do penance; so far at least as from the time she begins to repent to have no further intercourse with that second husband who ought to be called not a husband but an adulterer.
If this seems too hard to her and if she cannot leave one whom she has once loved and will not prefer the Lord to sensual pleasure, let her hear the declaration of the apostle: “ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils, and in another place: what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?"
(Letters 55,58)
First, everything here is taken out of context, Jerome here was speaking of a case where a women claimed to have been forced to remarry.
Second, He does not ask the women to divorce, but only to abstain from sexual intercourse.
Last, Jerome actually taught in this passage exactly the opposite of what Webb teaches in his book! He says that she must not return to her former husband!
Note: you get a very different picture when you don't have someone cutting out the pieces they didn't like.
Here is what Jerome wrote in its entire context:
"3. I find joined to your letter of inquiries a short paper containing the following words: ask him, (that is me,) whether a woman who has left her husband on the ground that he is an adulterer and sodomite and has found herself compelled to take another may in the lifetime of him whom she first left be in communion with the church without doing penance for her fault. As I read the case put I recall the verse they make excuses for their sins. We are all human and all indulgent to our own faults; and what our own will leads us to do we attribute to a necessity of nature. It is as though a young man were to say, I am over-borne by my body, the glow of nature kindles my passions, the structure of my frame and its reproductive organs call for sexual intercourse. Or again a murderer might say, I was in want, I stood in need of food, I had nothing to cover me. If I shed the blood of another, it was to save myself from dying of cold and hunger. Tell the sister, therefore, who thus enquires of me concerning her condition, not my sentence but that of the apostle. Do you not know, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman which has an husband is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if, while her husband lives, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. Romans 7:1-3 And in another place: the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7:39 The apostle has thus cut away every plea and has clearly declared that, if a woman marries again while her husband is living, she is an adulteress. You must not speak to me of the violence of a ravisher, a mother's pleading, a father's bidding, the influence of relatives, the insolence and the intrigues of servants, household losses. A husband may be an adulterer or a sodomite, he may be stained with every crime and may have been left by his wife because of his sins; yet he is still her husband and, so long as he lives, she may not marry another. The apostle does not promulgate this decree on his own authority but on that of Christ who speaks in him. For he has followed the words of Christ in the gospel: whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, commits adultery. Matthew 5:32 Mark what he says: whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery. Whether she has put away her husband or her husband her, the man who marries her is still an adulterer. Wherefore the apostles seeing how heavy the yoke of marriage was thus made said to Him: if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry, and the Lord replied, he that is able to receive it, let him receive it. And immediately by the instance of the three eunuchs he shows the blessedness of virginity which is bound by no carnal tie. Matthew 19:10-12
4. I have not been able quite to determine what it is that she means by the words has found herself compelled to marry again. What is this compulsion of which she speaks? Was she overborne by a crowd and ravished against her will? If so, why has she not, thus victimized, subsequently put away her ravisher? Let her read the books of Moses and she will find that if violence is offered to a betrothed virgin in a city and she does not cry out, she is punished as an adulteress: but if she is forced in the field, she is innocent of sin and her ravisher alone is amenable to the laws. Deuteronomy 22:23-27 Therefore if your sister, who, as she says, has been forced into a second union, wishes to receive the body of Christ and not to be accounted an adulteress, let her do penance; so far at least as from the time she begins to repent to have no farther intercourse with that second husband who ought to be called not a husband but an adulterer. If this seems hard to her and if she cannot leave one whom she has once loved and will not prefer the Lord to sensual pleasure, let her hear the declaration of the apostle: ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils, 1 Corinthians 10:21 and in another place: what communion has light with darkness? And what concord has Christ with Belial? 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 What I am about to say may sound novel but after all it is not new but old for it is supported by the witness of the old testament. If she leaves her second husband and desires to be reconciled with her first, she cannot be so now; for it is written in Deuteronomy: When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement and gives it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; or if the latter husband die which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent her away may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and you shall not cause the land to sin, which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 Wherefore, I beseech you, do your best to comfort her and to urge her to seek salvation. Diseased flesh calls for the knife and the searing-iron. The wound is to blame and not the healing art, if with a cruelty that is really kindness a physician to spare does not spare, and to be merciful is cruel."
< Message edited by benelchi -- 6/17/2008 7:26:39 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/17/2008 7:38:29 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 1081
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Second, He does not ask the women to divorce, but only to abstain from sexual intercourse.
Last, Jerome actually taught in this passage exactly the opposite of what Webb teaches in his book! He says that she must not return to her former husband!
it says as she BEGINS to repent and at least from the time she stops having intercourse... with the man that he says should NOT be called her husband...but an adulterer. It is clear he expects her to leave the union... when he says if she cannot leave the one she once loved and does not prefer the Lord to her sensual pleasure....
Benelchi, you can twist everything all you want... the point is Jerome DID NOT view the second marriage as a valid marriage. He still viewed the original covenant as binding for life.... that stands in opposition to what you teach, as do most of the early church.
Anyone can go to the link I posted above and see that. They virtually unanimously agreed that marriage was a permanent covenant for life and remarriage was strictly forbidden and was continuous adultery.
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 6/17/2008 7:44:46 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/17/2008 7:41:01 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2547
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
quote:
Second, He does not ask the women to divorce, but only to abstain from sexual intercourse.
Last, Jerome actually taught in this passage exactly the opposite of what Webb teaches in his book! He says that she must not return to her former husband!
it says as she BEGINS to repent and at least from the time she stops having intercourse... with the man that he says should NOT be called her husband...but an adulterer. It is clear he expects her to leave the union... when he says if she cannot leave the one she once loved and does not prefer the Lord to her sensual pleasure....
Benelchi, you can twist everything all you want... the point is Jerome DID NOT view the second marriage as a valid marriage. He still viewed the original covenant as binding for life.... that stands in opposition to what you teach, as do most of the early church.
Anyone can go to the link I posted above and see that. They virtually unanimously agreed that marriage was a permanent covenant for life and remarriage was strictly forbidden and was continuous adultery.
Then why did webb feel the need to edit out so much of what Jerome really said?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/17/2008 7:52:54 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 1081
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Last, Jerome actually taught in this passage exactly the opposite of what Webb teaches in his book! He says that she must not return to her former husband!
Finding little inconsistencies like this does not prove your case. You reject MOST of what the earliest church taught about the permanency of marriage in favor of whatever random pieces you can find that support your conclusion, or twist to fit your conclusion. Yes, there were slight variations in what they taught- but they all came to the same conclusion that marriage was permanent.
NOTHING like the all over the map teachings today. I trust those who were closest to Christ, not the humanistic teachings of the modern church...
Mostly, I trust God's Word and that's all I need.
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 6/17/2008 8:07:01 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/17/2008 8:06:10 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2547
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
Finding little inconsistencies like this does not prove your case. You reject MOST of what the earliest church taught about the marriage covenant in favor of whatever random pieces you can find that support your conclusion, or twist to fit your conclusion.
Let's see:
Can those divorced prior to conversion remarry?
Early Church: Yes
You: No
Can the those abandoned by an unbelieving spouse remarry?
Early church: Yes
You: No
Must someone who has remarried divorce?
Early church: No
You: Yes
Can a spouse who was remarried divorce and remarry their former spouse?
Early church: No
You: Yes
Can a believers who has divorced remarry while their former spouse still lives?
Early church: Yes
You: Yes
Can a believer who has divorced remarry after their former spouse has died?
Some of the Early church: No
You: Yes
It really is "You that rejects MOST of what the earliest church taught about the marriage covenant in favor of whatever random pieces you can find that support your conclusion, or twist to fit your conclusion.", isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/17/2008 8:29:11 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 1081
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let's see:
Can those divorced prior to conversion remarry?
Early Church: Yes (how many taught this?)
You: No
Can the those abandoned by an unbelieving spouse remarry?
Early church: Yes (please provide reference)
You: No
Must someone who has remarried divorce?
Early church: No (I just provided a reference for this, and they already said it is adultery and not a marriage)
You: Yes
Can a spouse who was remarried divorce and remarry their former spouse?
Early church: No (not all taught this)
You: Yes
Can a believers who has divorced remarry while their former spouse still lives?
Early church: Yes (did you mean NO???)
You: Yes NO???
Can a believer who has divorced remarry after their former spouse has died?
Some of the Early church: No (one person taught this and you reject it too?)
You: Yes
see my comments above...
again you misrepresent what they taught... to detract from the fact that they saw marriage as a permanent covenant for life.
I only reject anything that is not supported by scripture like the fact that divorcing before conversion doesn't count. Ambrose of Milan (A.D. 387) taught that conversion to Christianity forgives past sin, but does not nullify or set aside God's laws. I accept his teaching that lines up with scripture that proves unbelievers marriages are recognized by God.
You reject what MOST OF THEM taught and their doctrine does not even resemble yours....not one of them. Yet, today you do nothing by appeal to what the "majority" are teaching... who are teaching something that doesn't even resemble what the earliest church taught... and that should be reason to use caution if we have come that far away from what they taught.
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 6/18/2008 10:26:45 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/17/2008 11:44:11 PM
|
|
|
liveconfidently
Posts: 17
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline
|
Hi Sheri,
I appreciate this post. I was married for eight years when one day, while my husband was traveling home from a business trip, he called me on his cell phone to tell me he didn't love me anymore. We were married by his dad, who is a pastor, and he grew up in a Christian home. I cannot explain the horrific feeling I had in my gut hearing those words. But I can tell you that over the next two years I stood in the gap for my marriage, all the while with complete confidence believing that God is ABLE and COULD restore my marriage. I endured the hardest moments of my life during those two years. Not from physical abuse. But from mental and physical abandonment, rejection, humilation, and embarrassment. My life as I knew it, had changed in one moment.
For the next several months, I prayed and prayed for God to change his heart and mind. I knew God was able to perform miracles. As the pain mounted, I continued praying for him, but I shifted my focus. I began asking God to change me through that process, all the while, asking the Lord to bind forgiveness to my heart for my husband so I could continue loving him and showing him grace as he walked through a very difficult time in his own life. I continued to seek the Lord for direction. I kept my feet planted in Him, and I listened.
To make this long story short (smile), after one year of staying together and walking through a wilderness in my marriage, my husband left our home. He moved out. Still for the next year, I sought the Lord's direction. I stayed faithful to my husband. But I was waiting for God to change something because I knew I could not endure much longer. And that's when I got my release. Throughout this entire ordeal, I stood on Jeremiah 29:11 which promised me that God had a hope and future for me.
My husband was already living another life. And God said to me, I release you daughter. You've remained faithful, and I am moving you on. I heard this so clearly, yet I questioned how God could tell me this when I know He hates divorce. But He said this to me. I sought council from my pastors, and mentors in my life, and they agreed that I did indeed hear the Lord. They had walked those two years out with me, too, and knew my life. So, we did divorce. We didn't have children. In fact, I struggled with infertility through the 10 years I was married to him.
Today...............God has restored my life 100 fold. I am remarried to a wonderful, loving, Christian man. And, the Lord blessed us with the sweetest, most delightful little boy. And we are living a full, rich life. I wanted to share my story (sorry it is lenghthy) because I wanted to encourage others who may be facing or who have faced a similar situation. I don't think things are always as black and white as we may think. I agree with you that people who have divorced can be in leadership on any level, and can remarry and be blessed beyond measure as long as there is true repentence and as long as they seek the Lord and seek Godly council for direction when walking through such an ordeal.
Thank you for listening.
Dori
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/18/2008 5:58:14 AM
|
|
|
car2nist
Posts: 3496
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: the other side of the computer screen
Status: offline
|
Hello, greeneyed. I am not a moderator but there is a restriction on posting our own stories. Many here, on both sides of the debate, post our stories in a blog or another website and then include a link. Just giving you a head's up!
and Welcome.
_____________________________
http://car2ner.imagekind.com
"May your days be long and your hardships few".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/18/2008 10:08:35 AM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 1081
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Then why did webb feel the need to edit out so much of what Jerome really said?
It is irrelevant whether Jerome believed one could return to the first spouse. He made it clear in his writings that remarriage was forbidden, that it was adultery in ALL CASES, and that the original covenant was BINDING FOR LIFE (not until divorce)...
He interpreted Romans 7:2-3 and Luke 16:18 to mean what they say... Funny how so many today want to explain those verses away...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/18/2008 8:30:58 PM
|
|
|
Dreams2music
Posts: 5
Joined: 4/17/2008
Status: offline
|
I am having a hard time following the format on this page so if I miss responding to a question please just ask it again.
quote:
You also bring up Rom. 7:2-3, yet that very passage does not show adultery as a cause of dissolvement of the marriage, does it? Paul only speaks of DEATH----the means by which God causes the marriage bond to be dissolved.
I agree death dissolves a marriage. Divorce too dissolves a marriage. G-d divorced Israel. Did he divorce North and South? No. He only divorced part of Israel. So, yes he divorced Israel, but not all of Israel. So is this really divorce? I can't answer that. I know that He set aside part of Israel.
I also find it interesting that people who support marriage at any cost will quote Malachi and other parts of the Tanakh, and yet ignore the parts which don't conform to their dogma. (Nothing personal meant here and I am not referring to you specifically in this instance, I am referring to other conversations I've had). For instance in those conversations I mentioned D'varim (Deut) 24 and Yirmeyahu (Jer) 3 and no one has replied to those mentions. It is clear from these verses that divorce did end a marriage, and the woman was not allowed to rewed her first husband because it was anathema.
quote:
In the case of the priests of Mal. 2nd, the Lord REJECTS the man's offerings who has put away his wife and taken another. The Lord calls the 1st wife---"she IS your companion, the wife of the covenant"
Another point here is that many people, especially those who believe one covenant for life, will compare divorce to death in that only death ends a marriage. Some have also said that to divorce a wife in those days (the times of the Tanakh) was a death penalty, AND YET D'varim 24 and Yirmeyahu 3 do not equate divorce to death. Furthermore, yes the L-rd rejected the priests offerings for having put their Israeli wives aside for the wives of foreigners who worshipped pagan gods. They were wrong to divorce their Israeli wives. But the opposite was also true, G-d commanded Israel to divorce their foreign wives. Read Ezra 10. But, if a covenant is a covenant is a covenant, why did Adonai command divorce?
Yochanan (genuine high priest of Israel, not Caiphas) was following the law of Israel in his pronouncements. A woman man not divorce her husband. Herodias divorced her husband, therefore it was not a divorce as she had no authority or right by G-d's Tanakh to do so.
quote:
But we do not find that to be the case at all in the NT, and it appears in the examples I give above in the OT, that God recognizes the first covenant as the one which is binding, hence we see Michal return to David AFTER she has married another man and we see the same with Gomer and Hosea (a picture of Jesus/the redeemed Church). We also see in Jer. 3 that God DOES woo back. Blessings...........
In the case of David he was never divorced from Michal. Shaul (Saul) took her away from David to punish him and gave her to another man. In Israel at the time a man could divorce his wife, but she could not divorce him. David never divorced her. He reclaimed his wife who was his wife all along.
In the case of Hoshea his wife was unfaithful. He never divorced her either, so she was in essence married to two men at one time (or many). Those were sins then, and sins now. He reclaimed the wife he never divorced.
So what was your point regarding these men and their wives?
And did I get all the points?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/18/2008 10:13:15 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1217
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dreams2music
I agree death dissolves a marriage. Divorce too dissolves a marriage.
Actually Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 both specifically say that ONLY death dissolves the marriage:
Romans 7:2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
Divorce does not dissolve a marriage according to Jesus, because He says that after divorcing the person is committing adultery to remarry, which means by definition that the divorce did not dissolve the marriage bond:
Mark 10: 6-12 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 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." In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."
Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”
Adultery by definition is an extramarital affair, or a married person having relations with someone who is not his or her spouse. If divorce could dissolve a marriage then adultery couldn't be an issue, but Jesus says it is, so clearly it doesn't. This is because the marriage union is joined by God for the life of the two involved:
Genesis 2:21-24 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4-6 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."
Ephesians 5:22-33 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
That is why those who do separate must remain unmarried or else reconcile:
1 Corinthians 7:10-13 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.
quote:
G-d divorced Israel. Did he divorce North and South? No. He only divorced part of Israel. So, yes he divorced Israel, but not all of Israel. So is this really divorce? I can't answer that. I know that He set aside part of Israel.
Either way it's symbolic and doesn't excuse us doing so when He commands us not to.
quote:
I also find it interesting that people who support marriage at any cost will quote Malachi and other parts of the Tanakh, and yet ignore the parts which don't conform to their dogma. (Nothing personal meant here and I am not referring to you specifically in this instance, I am referring to other conversations I've had). For instance in those conversations I mentioned D'varim (Deut) 24 and Yirmeyahu (Jer) 3 and no one has replied to those mentions. It is clear from these verses that divorce did end a marriage, and the woman was not allowed to rewed her first husband because it was anathema.
Yes, but the divorce permitted Old Covenant people in the Law was for the cause of a man finding his bride to not be a virgin when he married her, so that has nothing to do with divorce as practiced today. The Law also said if she was a virgin when he married her, that he could not divorce her all his days.
quote:
In the case of the priests of Mal. 2nd, the Lord REJECTS the man's offerings who has put away his wife and taken another. The Lord calls the 1st wife---"she IS your companion, the wife of the covenant"
quote:
Another point here is that many people, especially those who believe one covenant for life, will compare divorce to death in that only death ends a marriage. Some have also said that to divorce a wife in those days (the times of the Tanakh) was a death penalty, AND YET D'varim 24 and Yirmeyahu 3 do not equate divorce to death. Furthermore, yes the L-rd rejected the priests offerings for having put their Israeli wives aside for the wives of foreigners who worshipped pagan gods. They were wrong to divorce their Israeli wives. But the opposite was also true, G-d commanded Israel to divorce their foreign wives. Read Ezra 10. But, if a covenant is a covenant is a covenant, why did Adonai command divorce?
Because the Law forbade those marriages in the first place, so there was a case of conflicting laws where one had to be set aside in favor of the other. God apparently chose to set aside the illegal marriages in this case, while New Covenant people are commanded to honor our marriages to unbelievers.
Also, Malachi doesn't say anything about the man marrying a foreign wife, it only says that he dealt treacherously against the woman who is still his wife by covenant, even after he divorced her. That means that his "divorce" didn't end his marriage either.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/19/2008 1:50:10 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2547
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes, but the divorce permitted Old Covenant people in the Law was for the cause of a man finding his bride to not be a virgin when he married her, so that has nothing to do with divorce as practiced today. The Law also said if she was a virgin when he married her, that he could not divorce her all his days.
Back to this unsupportable interpretation again?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/19/2008 7:40:02 AM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1217
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
Yes, but the divorce permitted Old Covenant people in the Law was for the cause of a man finding his bride to not be a virgin when he married her, so that has nothing to do with divorce as practiced today. The Law also said if she was a virgin when he married her, that he could not divorce her all his days.
Back to this unsupportable interpretation again?
I'm sorry but these scriptures are clear:
Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries (bâ‛al) her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house"
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 "If any man takes (lâqach) a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took (lâqach) this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
When a man "lâqach" his wife refers to the end of the betrothal period when he would take his wife and become one flesh with her. In Old Covenant marriages, becoming husband and wife at the time of the betrothal is distinct from being married (lâqach) or becoming one flesh which didn't happen until the end of the betrothal. This can also be supported by scripture:
Deuteronomy 20:7 'And who is the man that is betrothed to a woman and has not married (lâqach) her? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would marry her.'
Th Law of divorce allowed for a man to divorce his wife at the time he married (lâqach) her if he found her sexually unlean then, which was a Hebrew euphemism for lack of virginity. The Law also stated that if she proved her virginity at that time, that he couldn't divorce her all his days. Therefore there was no allowance for divorce after the point that he married (lâqach) her, and the permanency of marriage has always been Law:
Genesis 2:21-24 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Malachi 2:13 "This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 "Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 "But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. 16 "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously." 17 You have wearied the LORD with your words Yet you say, "How have we wearied Him?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and He delights in them," or, "Where is the God of justice?"
Even in the Old Testament God says that men who illegally divorced their wives were still bound to them by covenant. That is why when Jesus came He told the Old Covenant men that they were committing adultery to remarry apart from finding fornication in them, as well as making their wives commit adultery, and that the men who married the women they divorced were also committing adultery even though they "divorced" her. This could not be true if their divorce separated what He had joined.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/19/2008 10:52:30 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2547
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm sorry but these scriptures are clear:
Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries (bâ‛al) her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house"
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 "If any man takes (lâqach) a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took (lâqach) this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
When a man "lâqach" his wife refers to the end of the betrothal period when he would take his wife and become one flesh with her. In Old Covenant marriages, becoming husband and wife at the time of the betrothal is distinct from being married (lâqach) or becoming one flesh which didn't happen until the end of the betrothal. This can also be supported by scripture:
Deuteronomy 20:7 'And who is the man that is betrothed to a woman and has not married (lâqach) her? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would marry her.'
Th Law of divorce allowed for a man to divorce his wife at the time he married (lâqach) her if he found her sexually unlean then, which was a Hebrew euphemism for lack of virginity. The Law also stated that if she proved her virginity at that time, that he couldn't divorce her all his days. Therefore there was no allowance for divorce after the point that he married (lâqach) her, and the permanency of marriage has always been Law:
The Law did NOT say "that if she proved her virginity on the wedding night, that he couldn't divorce her all his days." It said that if at some unspecified time after the marriage had taken place the husband defamed his wife by claiming she had not been a virgin on the wedding night and the parent brought proof of her virginity (a cloth with the blood from the wedding night kept by her parents), that because the man was proven to have lied about his wife he would not be permitted to divorce her. The fact that we know that Jewish parents did keep this "proof" of virginity alone contradicts the statement you made. There would never have been a reason to keep it past the wedding night if your contention was correct.
Neither Du. 24:1-4 or Du. 22:13-19 speak about betrothal or the wedding night, and there is no evidence during the period of biblical history that it was ever understood that way.
More to the point, This argument of yours has no more credibility now that it did the last time you raised it on this thread. So far you have not been able to find one Hebrew scholar Christian or secular that supports your claim that these passages grammatically must refer to the betrothal and you have demonstrated a complete lack of understand of the Hebrew language yourself, a langauge you have never studied, and yet you want people to take your crazy interpretation over that of the scholars who have really put in the hard work and effort required to read and study the Bible in Hebrew???
Again, I ask: Can you find just one Hebrew scholar that supports the conclusions you have made about the grammar and vocabulary of these passages?
Do you remember your conclusion after not being able to produce one Hebrew scholar that supported your conclusion last time? I do! You said that you were right because your conclusion "couldn't possibly be wrong." For the record, I can assure you that you really can be wrong, and this last post of yours demonstrates that reality.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/19/2008 2:02:48 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 1081
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
It said that if at some unspecified time after the marriage had taken place the husband defamed his wife by claiming she had not been a virgin on the wedding night and the parent brought proof of her virginity (a cloth with the blood from the wedding night kept by her parents), that because the man was proven to have lied about his wife he would not be permitted to divorce her.
I'm confused... are you saying that 20 years into a marriage if we find out our spouse was not a virgin we have grounds for divorce? Could you explain how a man can determine that his wife was not a virgin "sometime after" the wedding night?
Deuteronomy 22:13 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,'
I don't see another possible conclusion here, other than what the text plainly says.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/19/2008 6:13:57 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 1081
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
Benelchi,
Could you please provide the scriptures that show a woman can divorce her husband for immorality? The only provision I see for that is given to the men (the only ones who could determine if they married a virgin). Could you please explain how your interpretation of Deut. fits this verse?
Luke 16:18
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery."
This is an “unbeliever who left”…and commits adultery by marrying another. It doesn’t seem that this woman was freed from the marriage bond by her husband’s abandonment or adultery- since she will also commit adultery when she marries another. If I’m understanding your theology correctly, he should have been freed from the marriage bond as well by his own adultery and abandonment… but it doesn’t appear that he was. Please explain.
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 6/19/2008 6:20:51 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/19/2008 6:35:06 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 1081
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sex between a unmarried person and a divorced person would be defined as fornication, not adultery. per the greek lexicon.
Augustine (A.D. 419)
Augustine is widely regarded to be the single greatest Church leader and theologian between the time of the Apostles of Jesus Christ and the Reformation...perhaps beyond. His place in the Church among his peers can be compared to what Paul's was among the Apostles. He rigorously and effectively defended the faith from enemies on all sides. His writings are credited with influencing to an enormous extent the thinking of the great leaders of the Reformation. He taught:
1. It is forbidden for a man or woman, even if they themselves were never previously married, to marry or have sexual relations with a divorced person whose spouse is still alive. They would be guilty of having sexual relations with another person's spouse, which is the very definition of the sin of adultery.
2. When a spouse remarries according to the law of the land after a divorce, they are still married to the former spouse as long as that spouse lives. Therefore the sexual and intimate relationship they have with a new spouse is simply engaging in a forbidden relationship with a person to whom they are not married in the eyes of God and the Church. To have sexual relations with a remarried spouse is to be living in sin and in direct disobedience to God's Word.
3. A spouse can if they must, divorce their spouse who is guilty of adultery, but must not have a relationship with another as long as the original partner lives, for they are still in a binding life-long covenant with them.
4. It never has been lawful, is not now lawful, and it never will be lawful to divorce and remarry. To say and do otherwise is to adopt the adulterous superstitions of a different God than the one to which we have to do.
5. Whoever remarries while a divorced spouse lives is in the state and sin of adultery.
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 6/19/2008 6:41:10 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/19/2008 9:11:44 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1217
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
quote:
It said that if at some unspecified time after the marriage had taken place the husband defamed his wife by claiming she had not been a virgin on the wedding night and the parent brought proof of her virginity (a cloth with the blood from the wedding night kept by her parents), that because the man was proven to have lied about his wife he would not be permitted to divorce her.
I'm confused... are you saying that 20 years into a marriage if we find out our spouse was not a virgin we have grounds for divorce? Could you explain how a man can determine that his wife was not a virgin "sometime after" the wedding night?
Deuteronomy 22:13 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,'
I don't see another possible conclusion here, other than what the text plainly says.
Good point. It seems to me that a man only gets one chance to make that determination, and that is when he marries (lâqach) her. What evidence of her 20 year previous non-virginity is he going to present 20 years later? Perhaps parents kept this evidence in a safe place forever out of necessity, because as is common with the Law, Old Covenant husbands made a habit of abusing it and making false accusations years later after the wife thought it was safe to wash the cloth. And of course how can the elders determine what is on a stained 20 year old cloth anyway?
Obviously the spirit of the Law was to permit a man to extricate himself from a marriage covenant that he made in good faith with the assumption that he was receiving a virgin bride. She had defrauded him in a sense, so he had a way of rescinding the offer. He had that opportunity when he took (lâqach) his wife and went in to her as the text says.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/19/2008 9:46:30 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2547
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
quote:
It said that if at some unspecified time after the marriage had taken place the husband defamed his wife by claiming she had not been a virgin on the wedding night and the parent brought proof of her virginity (a cloth with the blood from the wedding night kept by her parents), that because the man was proven to have lied about his wife he would not be permitted to divorce her.
I'm confused... are you saying that 20 years into a marriage if we find out our spouse was not a virgin we have grounds for divorce? Could you explain how a man can determine that his wife was not a virgin "sometime after" the wedding night?
Deuteronomy 22:13 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,'
I don't see another possible conclusion here, other than what the text plainly says.
Good point. It seems to me that a man only gets one chance to make that determination, and that is when he marries (lâqach) her. What evidence of her 20 year previous non-virginity is he going to present 20 years later? Perhaps parents kept this evidence in a safe place forever out of necessity, because as is common with the Law, Old Covenant husbands made a habit of abusing it and making false accusations years later after the wife thought it was safe to wash the cloth. And of course how can the elders determine what is on a stained 20 year old cloth anyway?
Obviously the spirit of the Law was to permit a man to extricate himself from a marriage covenant that he made in good faith with the assumption that he was receiving a virgin bride. She had defrauded him in a sense, so he had a way of rescinding the offer. He had that opportunity when he took (lâqach) his wife and went in to her as the text says.
SealedEternal
The problem is that we know that the Hebrew custom was for the parents to keep the cloth from the wedding night to ensure that their daughters name was not slandered. This practice has continued throughout history and is still practiced today in some cultures. The issue being dealt with in Du. 22 is solely that of a slanderous accusation made against a wife after the wedding, not on the wedding night. Why do you think the parents kept (and still do keep) the proof of their daughter virginity?
The purpose of this law was to protect the wife from slanderous accusations made by the husband. If, as you contend, this was something that only happened on the wedding night, the husband would have presented the unstained cloth as proof of his brides infidelity himself, her parents would not yet have received it!
Also Jewish weddings in the first century were always performed on Wednesdays when the marriage was to a virgin. This was done so that the husband could make the claim of infidelity before the Sanhedrin which met on Thursdays. This was his recourse when virginity on the wedding night was in question.
Additionally, concluding that divorce was only permitted on the wedding night based on the grammar of Du. 24:1-4 is completely ridiculous. It would would be like reading "when a man marries he must stop dating other women" and then concluding that after the wedding night it would be OK for him to date other women
< Message edited by benelchi -- 6/19/2008 9:52:30 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/19/2008 10:45:11 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1217
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
The problem is that we know that the Hebrew custom was for the parents to keep the cloth from the wedding night to ensure that their daughters name was not slandered. This practice has continued throughout history and is still practiced today in some cultures. The issue being dealt with in Du. 22 is solely that of a slanderous accusation made against a wife after the wedding, not on the wedding night. Why do you think the parents kept (and still do keep) the proof of their daughter virginity?
I answered that already. Because Old Covenant men routinely looked for ways to create loopholes in God's Laws as you do. I'm sure there were many innocent women whose husbands wanted to ditch them 20 years later, who then asked her to prove she was a virgin 20 years earlier when her husband married her. Then when they said they didn't have evidence anymore, their husband said, "Good. Consider yourself divorced as per the Law of God." That was obviously never God's intent in creating this Law, and is a blatant abuse of it.
It is after the wedding night that the man would have known his wife isn't a virgin, and it is then that he would be able to present his case to the elders. That is the only possible time that such a discovery could be made, and that is when the "evidence" would still be viable. Common sense tells us that is what the text is speaking to.
Obviously the spirit of the Law was to permit a man to extricate himself from a marriage covenant that he made in good faith with the assumption that he was receiving a virgin bride. She had defrauded him in a sense, so he had a way of rescinding the offer. He had that one opportunity, when he took (lâqach) his wife and went in to her as the text says. It is absurd to suggest that decades later the woman was expected to prove she was a virgin decades earlier, as if the evidence would even be viable at that point. And if the poor woman's parents accidentally misplaced or washed the cloth, the man could hold that over her head forever, and cast her away whenever he felt like it. That is not at all the intent of this Law and we both know it.
quote:
The purpose of this law was to protect the wife from slanderous accusations made by the husband. If, as you contend, this was something that only happened on the wedding night, the husband would have presented the unstained cloth as proof of his brides infidelity himself, her parents would not yet have received it!
It was to protect her from slanderous accusations as well as protecting him from being defrauded in his marriage covenant. He purchased her from her parents with the understanding that she was a virgin. If she wasn't then they cheated him in a sense. The cloth was regarded as evidence either way. It either proved her innocence or it proved he had been defrauded. The main point is that all of this was determined on the wedding night, and would be settled then.
quote:
Additionally, concluding that divorce was only permitted on the wedding night based on the grammar of Du. 24:1-4 is completely ridiculous. It would would be like reading "when a man marries he must stop dating other women" and then concluding that after the wedding night it would be OK for him to date other women
What kind of logic is that? "When" is an adverb that means "what time or at what point something happens"According to your analogy the man has to stop dating when (at the point that) he marries his wife, but then you go on to say that it means he may date the next day. That means he didn't stop dating when he married her as your text say. You're whole analogy is flawed and based on a false comparison, but now I see why you seem to have difficulty understanding simple statements in scripture. "When a man takes a wife and marries her" means at he found indecency in her "at the point" that he took his wife and married her.
SealedEternal
< Message edited by SealedEternal -- 6/19/2008 10:52:33 PM >
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/20/2008 9:35:49 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2547
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
Again, I ask:
Can you provide a reference to one Hebrew scholar that supports your strange interpretation?
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
The problem is that we know that the Hebrew custom was for the parents to keep the cloth from the wedding night to ensure that their daughters name was not slandered. This practice has continued throughout history and is still practiced today in some cultures. The issue being dealt with in Du. 22 is solely that of a slanderous accusation made against a wife after the wedding, not on the wedding night. Why do you think the parents kept (and still do keep) the proof of their daughter virginity?
I answered that already. Because Old Covenant men routinely looked for ways to create loopholes in God's Laws as you do. I'm sure there were many innocent women whose husbands wanted to ditch them 20 years later, who then asked her to prove she was a virgin 20 years earlier when her husband married her. Then when they said they didn't have evidence anymore, their husband said, "Good. Consider yourself divorced as per the Law of God." That was obviously never God's intent in creating this Law, and is a blatant abuse of it.
It is after the wedding night that the man would have known his wife isn't a virgin, and it is then that he would be able to present his case to the elders. That is the only possible time that such a discovery could be made, and that is when the "evidence" would still be viable. Common sense tells us that is what the text is speaking to.
Obviously the spirit of the Law was to permit a man to extricate himself from a marriage covenant that he made in good faith with the assumption that he was receiving a virgin bride. She had defrauded him in a sense, so he had a way of rescinding the offer. He had that one opportunity, when he took (lâqach) his wife and went in to her as the text says. It is absurd to suggest that decades later the woman was expected to prove she was a virgin decades earlier, as if the evidence would even be viable at that point. And if the poor woman's parents accidentally misplaced or washed the cloth, the man could hold that over her head forever, and cast her away whenever he felt like it. That is not at all the intent of this Law and we both know it.
quote:
The purpose of this law was to protect the wife from slanderous accusations made by the husband. If, as you contend, this was something that only happened on the wedding night, the husband would have presented the unstained cloth as proof of his brides infidelity himself, her parents would not yet have received it!
It was to protect her from slanderous accusations as well as protecting him from being defrauded in his marriage covenant. He purchased her from her parents with the understanding that she was a virgin. If she wasn't then they cheated him in a sense. The cloth was regarded as evidence either way. It either proved her innocence or it proved he had been defrauded. The main point is that all of this was determined on the wedding night, and would be settled then.
quote:
Additionally, concluding that divorce was only permitted on the wedding night based on the grammar of Du. 24:1-4 is completely ridiculous. It would would be like reading "when a man marries he must stop dating other women" and then concluding that after the wedding night it would be OK for him to date other women
What kind of logic is that? "When" is an adverb that means "what time or at what point something happens"According to your analogy the man has to stop dating when (at the point that) he marries his wife, but then you go on to say that it means he may date the next day. That means he didn't stop dating when he married her as your text say. You're whole analogy is flawed and based on a false comparison, but now I see why you seem to have difficulty understanding simple statements in scripture. "When a man takes a wife and marries her" means at he found indecency in her "at the point" that he took his wife and married her.
SealedEternal
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/20/2008 9:45:20 AM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2482
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
Augustine (A.D. 419)
Augustine is widely regarded to be the single greatest Church leader and theologian between the time of the Apostles of Jesus Christ and the Reformation...perhaps beyond. His place in the Church among his peers can be compared to what Paul's was among the Apostles. He rigorously and effectively defended the faith from enemies on all sides. His writings are credited with influencing to an enormous extent the thinking of the great leaders of the Reformation. He taught:
And, yet, Augustine's opinions and writings are not scripture and he wasn't an Apostle. Paul, who was an Apostle, whose writings are scripture, says that if an unbelieving spouse abandons the marriage the innocent spouse is not bound to the marriage. Who you going to believe -- Augustine, a great church leader or Paul, an Apostle? I will stick with the one whose writings are scripture.
Or better yet...Jesus, who is God, who gave us the exception clause "except for 'pornia'".
< Message edited by laura... -- 6/20/2008 9:51:50 AM >
_____________________________
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith... ...so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. Hebrew 12:3-4
Follow me on Twitter: MrsLalaD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 6/20/2008 6:47:36 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 1081
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
And, yet, Augustine's opinions and writings are not scripture and he wasn't an Apostle. Paul, who was an Apostle, whose writings are scripture, says that if an unbelieving spouse abandons the marriage the innocent spouse is not bound to the marriage. Who you going to believe -- Augustine, a great church leader or Paul, an Apostle? I will stick with the one whose writings are scripture.
Or better yet...Jesus, who is God, who gave us the exception clause "except for 'pornia'".
Yes, I will stick with what Jesus said as well, who is also in complete agreement with Paul. The exception was just addressed above, and was not for adultery or referring to divorce as we know it. An unbeliever leaving does not end the marriage covenant... or else Jesus wouldn't say:
Luke 16:18
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery."
A man who abandons his wife and marries another is committing adultery. That can only be physically possible if he is STILL BOUND to the wife he abandoned. So that interpretation of the "unbeliever leaving" cannot be correct. We are bound to each other in marriage... one cannot be free and not the other.
Paul says right before that, we must remain unmarried or be reconciled, and right after that we are bound until death. And in Romans Paul confirms that by saying if we are married to another while our first spouse lives, we will be called an adulteress.
The earliest church fathers were for the most part in unanimous agreement and did not interpret the scriptures that way. They saw that NOTHING broke the marriage covenant except death.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
& 
