How Badly has Matthew 19:9 been Corrupted?

johansen · Mar 10, 2025

Jamdoc said:
No sex does not change the genetics of the other person, otherwise you'd start taking on phenotype traits of your spouse or anyone you ever had sex with, your eye color could change, your skin color or hair color could change, etc.

it doesn't change your dna in a way that we can currently measure, but having a child permanently changes the woman's body with influences from the offspring.

The Most Mysterious Cells in Our Bodies Don’t Belong to Us

You carry literal pieces of your mom—and maybe your grandma, and your siblings, and your aunts and uncles.

www.theatlantic.com

johansen · Mar 10, 2025

Jamdoc said:
as for childbearing? well, Isaiah 65:23 does actually kinda say that people will have offspring on the New Earth so maybe there's a way for someone who was sterile or unmarried in this life to be able to be a parent on the New Earth still, I don't know how exactly it would work.

yes, reproduction continues on the new earth. but not in heaven.

Jamdoc · Mar 10, 2025

johansen said:
it doesn't change your dna in a way that we can currently measure, but having a child permanently changes the woman's body with influences from the offspring.

The Most Mysterious Cells in Our Bodies Don’t Belong to Us

You carry literal pieces of your mom—and maybe your grandma, and your siblings, and your aunts and uncles.

www.theatlantic.com

yeah.. those people are biologically related to you, note it doesn't say your spouse or casual sex partners. A pregnant woman will have cells of her children that end up sloughing off and going through the placenta and end up in the mother's circulation and can wind up somewhere in her body.

That is not what the OP that I'm disputing this over is talking about. He's trying to say marriage makes you biologically related to your spouse and so that relationship never ends, like the relationship between a mother and child never ends.
Marriage ends.

robert424 · Mar 10, 2025

Jamdoc said:
This explanation fails on 2 fronts:

1. The question answered had to do with a woman that was "given in marriage" 7 times, they asked who's wife she'd be, Jesus' answer was nobody's. She wouldn't remain the wife of any of those she was given in marriage to. That directly refutes what you're trying to say that they stay married.
Marriage (a legal relationship) ends. No sex does not change the genetics of the other person, otherwise you'd start taking on phenotype traits of your spouse or anyone you ever had sex with, your eye color could change, your skin color or hair color could change, etc.

2. If all marriage is ended, everyone's single, that's equal. If people who got married stay married and people who died without finding anyone are forced to stay single for all of eternity juxtaposed against happy married couples while they're lonely, that's a pretty awful place. Not everyone would choose marriage of course but there are going to be people who'd choose marriage if they had the opportunity but it never arises, or they die young.

as for childbearing? well, Isaiah 65:23 does actually kinda say that people will have offspring on the New Earth so maybe there's a way for someone who was sterile or unmarried in this life to be able to be a parent on the New Earth still, I don't know how exactly it would work.

Jamdoc wrote: "The question answered had to do with a woman that was "given in marriage" 7 times, they asked who's wife she'd be, Jesus' answer was nobody's."

Yah! a Bible Text. XD. Thank your for your arguments, and thank your for a Bible Text.

The short answer to your argument: I disagree what Jesus answered 'nobody's. It is not a fact that Jesus said 'nobody's'. I argue that the statement of Jesus implies 'all seven of them'. The woman is a polygamous, and there is no erasing that fact, and in heaven she will remain a polygamous woman. She is definitely not going to go back to being a virgin.

The long answer - paraphrasing: the Pharisees asked which of the seven husbands would have the woman. Jesus replied, saying that the Pharisees didn't know the Scripture, and stated that, in heaven, neither male humans nor female humans will be getting married [literally: neither married, nor given in marriage].

Mark 12:25 "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but as as the angels which are in heaven."

[paraphrasing: For when humans shall rise from the dead, the risen male humans will not be getting married, nor will the risen female humans be given in marriage, but they will be as the unfallen angels in heaven.]

Because Jesus contrasted the woman's marriages to the female unfallen angels, who are not 'given in marriage' in heaven, I interpret Mark 12:25 to mean that there are no NEW marriages in heaven.

So, we can see then, that Jesus did not directly answer the question of the Pharisees. The Pharisees asked which of the seven husbands will be the husband of their common wife, and Jesus answered, (paraphrasing: 'Well, neither the risen males will be getting married, nor will the risen females be given in marriage in heaven.') and he didn't address the question of which of the seven marriages would be valid in heaven.

So, in the case of the woman with seven husbands, when they all get to heaven, all seven of the men will be wanting to spend some time with the woman. Every one of them will be her husband, and they will all have to share her attention [that is so....o...o.o.o. disrespectful - making a bunch of men share one woman's attention. lol., but I suppose it is no different than seven sons, having to share the attention of one mother.]. On earth, we call that Polyandry - one woman; multiple men, which is a type of Polygamy. The only thing that will be different is that there is no sex in heaven. They will all have to live in blissful, celibate, polygamous/polyandrous marriage.

The fact that Jesus did not tell the Pharisees which of the seven husbands would be the woman's husband, begs the question about whether the death of a spouse terminates a marriage. Most theologians quote Romans 7:2,3 " For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."

But it is pure presumption to conclude from this text that the woman is no longer married when her husband dies. It says she is "loosed from the law of [her] husband". It does not say 'she is no longer married to her husband'. One does not logically follow from the other. If this widow remarries, she becomes a bigamist - but bigamy and polygamy and polyandry goes unpunished in the Bible. Just because God does not punish polygamy in the Bible, does not mean, that death terminates a marriage. [Note: Bigamy is illegal in the USA and the British commonwealth countries.]

When a Parent dies, they are still your parent, even though they are dead. When an uncle dies, he is still your uncle. When a son dies, the father-son relationship is not terminated. When Christ died, He was still our King, even though he was dead, and when he arose again, he took up his crown as King. If death does not terminate these relationships, then why should it terminate a Spousal relationship?

God likens death to sleep - it is temporary. So, if your spousal relationship is not terminated when they are asleep, then why would their death - which is temporary in the eyes of God - terminate the spousal relationship.

[Deut. 31:16 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers ..."]

But Wait! It gets worse.

How about the case of a large majority of Christian (Protestant and Catholic) men, who have high 'body counts' [to use the modern term]. They call it 'dating', which means: burger, fries, movie, [and then the euphemism] 'home run', and repeat many times and each iteration increases his 'body count' by one more. None of these 'relationships' involve a 'legal contract'. How do you explain all these? Which of these 'conquests' will be his in heaven? My answer is that each and every one is a 'marriage', because 'Sex is marriage'. True, they have a different title: Concubines, harlots, girlfriend with benefits etc. In the case: If the guy confesses his sin and repents and goes to heaven which of these females will belong to him? I answer: all of them. He will have to deal with all of them and all the multitude of consequences of his behavior - for eternity. What happened between him and all these females cannot be erased. The consequences of his actions will not be erased. He will have to deal with it - for eternity - and the consequences are not restricted to just between him and the female, but extend to all her family members too, and he will have to deal with that too - for eternity. In short, God will forgive, but consequences are eternal.

Jamdoc wrote: Marriage (a legal relationship) ends.

I counter that there is no 'legal relationship', because, according to the law, a person can't make a 'legal contract' with a 'minor', or a human who is not a 'legal person', and women were not recognized as a 'legal person' until 1929 in Canada, - before 1929, women were under the system called 'Coverture' - therefore no 'legal contract' is valid, therefore, Marriage is not a 'legal contract'.

[Evidence]: from Coverture - Wikipedia
"Coverture was a legal doctrine in English common law ... in which a married woman's legal existence was considered to be merged with that of her husband. Upon marriage, she had no independent legal existence of her own, in keeping with society's expectation that her husband was to provide for and protect her."

But, to be fair, upon re-reading it, I notice that you changed it from 'contract' to 'legal relationship', so maybe we are making some progress here. If you mean - by legal relationship - that civil government recognition of the 'relationship' will end, then, ok, I agree with that, but only because on the judgement day, all civil authority will be wiped out. There will be no civil government at that point. But if you take out the word 'legal' and just say that 'the marriage relationship ends'; then I disagree with that.

Jamdoc wrote: No [-] sex does not change the genetics of the other person, otherwise you'd start taking on phenotype traits of your spouse or anyone you ever had sex with, your eye color could change, your skin color or hair color could change, etc.

When a human stomach - or a white blood cell - 'digests' something, for example, a carrot, or a dead sperm cell, all the proteins and DNA, is broken up into short fragments, which are incorporated into the cells of the host - the short fragments are recycled. We would not expect to see changes in phenotype because the short fragments are much shorter than 'genes', nevertheless, the host DNA is changed. The saying 'You are what you eat' is literally true. When you eat a carrot or a sperm cell, all the protein, and DNA, and carbohydrates inside it are broken up and become part of You. Yes, your DNA is merged with the DNA of what you eat - or otherwise exchange DNA with.

An example of longer DNA sequences being inserted into the host DNA occurs with virus's.

[Evidence] from Viral Integration and Consequences on Host Gene Expression - PMC (accessed: 10 March 2025)
"Abstract: Upon cell infection, some viruses integrate their genome [their DNA] into the host chromosome, either as part of their life cycle (such as retroviruses), or incidentally."

So, yes, exchanging DNA with another person, does change their DNA, and like I said before, if the wife is a oral sodomist and swallows, the husband's DNA will be incorporated into her DNA. They will - literally - become one - same as eating a carrot - no difference.

Jamdoc wrote: "If all marriage is ended, everyone's single, that's equal. ... people who died without finding anyone are forced to stay single for all of eternity ..."

True. But think of a city full of the most Loving, Loyal, Righteous, tender-hearted, Virtuous, people that ever lived on earth. 'Single' also has huge benefits: a lot less emotional baggage, a lot less family responsibilities - you'll get to spend more time with God. The fact that the angels are capable of marriage, but choose singlehood, says a lot about the desirability of singlehood.

jamdoc wrote: "Isaiah 65:23 does actually kinda say that people will have offspring on the New Earth"

Isaiah 65:23 "They will not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; they [are] the seed of the blessed LORD, and their offspring with them."

I believe that there will be tons of orphan babies in the New Earth, that will need adults to take care of them, and I'm sure that God will be asking for adult volunteers and assigning the orphan babies to available adults. And where ever there are babies, the women will gather, and that woman and orphan baby will need support from other adults so there will be plenty of opportunities for 'single' people to form 'celibate friendship groups' to help raise an orphan baby. The New Earth will be a busy place.

In my opinion in Isaiah 65:23, those words "will have offspring" have to be read in the context of the preceding phrase where God says that all people are the offspring of God, so the following words "will have offspring" does not automatically mean that women will be getting pregnant and birthing babies, but that they will be taking care of, and raising, orphan babies, assigned to them by God. I also think - without proof - that God will hand over- to any woman who lost an unborn baby - the baby she lost, so she will get a chance to raise her own baby that she lost.

That is just my opinion though - for what its worth.

robert424

robert424 · Mar 10, 2025

johansen said:
yes, reproduction continues on the new earth. but not in heaven.

Isaiah 65:23 "They will not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; they [are] the seed of the blessed LORD, and their offspring with them."

In my opinion, in Isaiah 65:23, those words "will have offspring" have to be read in the context of the preceding phrase where God says that all people are the offspring of God, so the following words "will have offspring" does not automatically mean that women will be getting pregnant and birthing babies, but that they will be taking care of, and raising, orphan babies, assigned to them by God. I also think - without proof - that God will hand over - to any woman who lost an unborn baby - the baby she lost, so she will get a chance to raise her own baby that she lost.

I believe that there will be tons of orphan babies in the New Earth, that will need adults to take care of them, and I'm sure that God will be asking for adult volunteers and assigning the orphan babies to available adults - adoption. And where ever there are babies, the women will gather, and that woman and orphan baby will need support from other adults so there will be plenty of opportunities for 'single' people to form 'celibate friendship groups' to help raise an orphan baby. The New Earth will be a busy place.

robert424

Jamdoc · Mar 10, 2025

robert424 said:
Yah! a Bible Text. XD. Thank your for your arguments, and thank your for a Bible Text.

The short answer to your argument: I disagree what Jesus answered 'nobody's. It is not a fact that Jesus said 'nobody's'. I argue that the statement of Jesus implies 'all seven of them'. The woman is a polygamous, and there is no erasing that fact, and in heaven she will remain a polygamous woman. She is definitely not going to go back to being a virgin.

The long answer - paraphrasing: the Pharisees asked which of the seven husbands would have the woman. Jesus replied, saying that the Pharisees didn't know the Scripture, and stated that, in heaven, neither male humans nor female humans will be getting married [literally: neither married, nor given in marriage].

Mark 12:25 "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but as as the angels which are in heaven."

[paraphrasing: For when humans shall rise from the dead, the risen male humans will not be getting married, nor will the risen female humans be given in marriage, but they will be as the unfallen angels in heaven.]

Because Jesus contrasted the woman's marriages to the female unfallen angels, who are not 'given in marriage' in heaven, I interpret Mark 12:25 to mean that there are no NEW marriages in heaven.

So, we can see then, that Jesus did not directly answer the question of the Pharisees. The Pharisees asked which of the seven husbands will be the husband of their common wife, and Jesus answered, (paraphrasing: 'Well, neither the risen males will be getting married, nor will the risen females be given in marriage in heaven.') and he didn't address the question of which of the seven marriages would be valid in heaven.

So, in the case of the woman with seven husbands, when they all get to heaven, all seven of the men will be wanting to spend some time with the woman. Every one of them will be her husband, and they will all have to share her attention [that is so....o...o.o.o. disrespectful - making a bunch of men share one woman's attention. lol., but I suppose it is no different than seven sons, having to share the attention of one mother.]. On earth, we call that Polyandry - one woman; multiple men, which is a type of Polygamy. The only thing that will be different is that there is no sex in heaven. They will all have to live in blissful, celibate, polygamous/polyandrous marriage.

The fact that Jesus did not tell the Pharisees which of the seven husbands would be the woman's husband, begs the question about whether the death of a spouse terminates a marriage. Most theologians quote Romans 7:2,3 " For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."

But it is pure presumption to conclude from this text that the woman is no longer married when her husband dies. It says she is "loosed from the law of [her] husband". It does not say 'she is no longer married to her husband'. One does not logically follow from the other. If this widow remarries, she becomes a bigamist - but bigamy and polygamy and polyandry goes unpunished in the Bible. Just because God does not punish polygamy in the Bible, does not mean, that death terminates a marriage. [Note: Bigamy is illegal in the USA and the British commonwealth countries.]

When a Parent dies, they are still your parent, even though they are dead. When an uncle dies, he is still your uncle. When a son dies, the father-son relationship is not terminated. When Christ died, He was still our King, even though he was dead, and when he arose again, he took up his crown as King. If death does not terminate these relationships, then why should it terminate a Spousal relationship?

God likens death to sleep - it is temporary. So, if your spousal relationship is not terminated when they are asleep, then why would their death - which is temporary in the eyes of God - terminate the spousal relationship.

[Deut. 31:16 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers ..."]

But Wait! It gets worse.

How about the case of a large majority of Christian (Protestant and Catholic) men, who have high 'body counts' [to use the modern term]. They call it 'dating', which means: burger, fries, movie, [and then the euphemism] 'home run', and repeat many times and each iteration increases his 'body count' by one more. None of these 'relationships' involve a 'legal contract'. How do you explain all these? Which of these 'conquests' will be his in heaven? My answer is that each and every one is a 'marriage', because 'Sex is marriage'. True, they have a different title: Concubines, harlots, girlfriend with benefits etc. In the case: If the guy confesses his sin and repents and goes to heaven which of these females will belong to him? I answer: all of them. He will have to deal with all of them and all the multitude of consequences of his behavior - for eternity. What happened between him and all these females cannot be erased. The consequences of his actions will not be erased. He will have to deal with it - for eternity - and the consequences are not restricted to just between him and the female, but extend to all her family members too, and he will have to deal with that too - for eternity. In short, God will forgive, but consequences are eternal.

I counter that there is no 'legal relationship', because, according to the law, a person can't make a 'legal contract' with a 'minor', or a human who is not a 'legal person', and women were not recognized as a 'legal person' until 1929 in Canada, - before 1929, women were under the system called 'Coverture' - therefore no 'legal contract' is valid, therefore, Marriage is not a 'legal contract'.

[Evidence]: from Coverture - Wikipedia
"Coverture was a legal doctrine in English common law ... in which a married woman's legal existence was considered to be merged with that of her husband. Upon marriage, she had no independent legal existence of her own, in keeping with society's expectation that her husband was to provide for and protect her."

But, to be fair, upon re-reading it, I notice that you changed it from 'contract' to 'legal relationship', so maybe we are making some progress here. If you mean - by legal relationship - that civil government recognition of the 'relationship' will end, then, ok, I agree with that, but only because on the judgement day, all civil authority will be wiped out. There will be no civil government at that point. But if you take out the word 'legal' and just say that 'the marriage relationship ends'; then I disagree with that.

Yeah none of that works.
The bible does not say there's no sex, that's an implication people make from there not being marriage. But it is not stated anywhere in the bible. That's an assumption. It's a fairly valid assumption, but the bible simply doesn't say it. There may be some other different relationship status on the New Earth that allows for procreation, as I stated Isaiah 65:23 does state that the "seed of the blessed of the Lord" that is, the "descendants" of Jesus, those adopted in, won't give birth to children in calamity (it's a reversal of the curse placed on Eve in Genesis 3), and their offspring will be blessed.
It does however say they won't get married or be given in marriage as an answer to which of the 7 husbands she had on Earth would be her husband in the resurrection. What the Sadducees were attempting to do to Jesus is trick Him, getting Him to answer as YOU are claiming He was, that Jesus would say "all of them" and then declare His teachings false because He just advocated polyandry/polygamy, or tricking Him by having Him choose one, if she's still married to the first then the law has promoted polyandry by allowing her to keep marrying more, or if she's married to the last one then if death released her from the previous six marriages, why didn't it release the last one?
Jesus' answer suckerpunched them, they did not expect the answer of all marriages had been released and nobody will be married to her at all. They couldn't accuse Him of anything, it was an answer they did not expect, and the rationale of being "like the angels" comes from 1 Enoch, where angels were not given spouses because they could not die, therefore did not need to have children to replenish their number. I kind of question the rationale in 1 Enoch considering marriage was given before the fall, before Adam or Eve could die, but that's the only text connection to Jesus' answer that can be found, it cannot be found in the canon old testament at all.

However the reason why the wife is able to remarry as a widow, is because the first marriage, with her deceased former husband, is considered concluded.
Otherwise it'd be adultery to remarry at all, even if your previous spouse dies and you remain alive.
Because the bible not only allows for widows to remarry but in fact considers it law that a widow marry her husband's younger brothers in some cases such as the legal question the Sadducees brought up. This would not be the case if the woman was still considered married to the first husband that passed away.
If marrying a woman who's divorced (except in cases of the woman divorcing because of an adulterous husband) is considered adultery, which is what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 19, then marrying a widow would also be adultery if she's considered still "joined" to her deceased husband. The only logical answer is.. death concludes the covenant. If the covenant can be concluded, then you can also conclude it by divorce, though doing so for any reason other than fornication results in adultery if they remarry.

as for use of the word covenant, it is because when God made both the old and new covenants, it was done as a marriage proposal. God uses the language of marriage and sex as euphemisms for His relationship to His people, particularly in Hosea, where Hosea's wife Gomer was used as an illustration for Israel. God "married" Israel, and they "played the harlot", going after other gods. Spiritual adultery in other words.
Marriage itself is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His Church according to Paul in Ephesians 5. So because God's relationship to us is not biological- we are not begotten sons of God, God has one and only begotten Son, but we are adopted by the new covenant, similarly the Church is the "bride of Christ" by the new covenant. That puts marriage in the light of a covenant relationship. Not a biological one.

robert424 said:
When a human stomach - or a white blood cell - 'digests' something, for example, a carrot, or a dead sperm cell, all the proteins and DNA, is broken up into short fragments, which are incorporated into the cells of the host - the short fragments are recycled. We would not expect to see changes in phenotype because the short fragments are much shorter than 'genes', nevertheless, the host DNA is changed. The saying 'You are what you eat' is literally true. When you eat a carrot or a sperm cell, all the protein, and DNA, and carbohydrates inside it are broken up and become part of You. Yes, your DNA is merged with the DNA of what you eat - or otherwise exchange DNA with.

An example of longer DNA sequences being inserted into the host DNA occurs with virus's.

[Evidence] from Viral Integration and Consequences on Host Gene Expression - PMC (accessed: 10 March 2025)
"Abstract: Upon cell infection, some viruses integrate their genome [their DNA] into the host chromosome, either as part of their life cycle (such as retroviruses), or incidentally."

So, yes, exchanging DNA with another person, does change their DNA, and like I said before, if the wife is a oral sodomist and swallows, the husband's DNA will be incorporated into her DNA. They will - literally - become one - same as eating a carrot - no difference.

No that's not how it works at all. It's not the molecules being broken down and rebuilt into the person's own DNA as components.. but rather the genome sequence. That does not change. Viruses can do this, sure but having sex with someone does not restructure your genome to incorporate their genome into yours. When a virus splices its genome into somatic cell lines they infect it generally causes junk mutations that can cause cancer, and damage, enough of it accelerates to process of aging which is itself, your DNA replication process having errors, and eventually those errors pile up and the genes no longer code for functional proteins as well. You don't take on new phenotypes, your body simply ages and gets worse.

But you won't find that a woman has sex with a man and now suddenly her entire body's cells have become a mix of her own DNA hybridized with the man she slept with. That doesn't work.

In another poster's article what they were talking about is a mother having her son's cells cross the placental barrier, entering the mother's circulatory system and being deposited in her thyroid, so some of the cells in the thyroid were actually her son's cells, and had XY chromosomes.

This isn't what happens with ingestion, where the DNA is metabolized into much smaller molecules. These were intact cells that circulated in blood and found themselves depositing in the thyroid gland. Since they were likely embryonic stem cells they end up being signaled to differentiate into functional thyroid cells. This would be more akin to an organ transplant. If you were to have a kidney transplant the kidney you receive would have another person (the donor's) DNA, but would function as your kidney. It would not alter your own DNA. Sperm doesn't work this way, it's haploid (only having 1 set of Chromosomes) and cannot go through mitosis (cellular division to asexually reproduce copies of itself). Sperm either unites with an egg, and then they become a new sequence of DNA having diploid chromosomes and capable of mitosis.. or it dies, and is broken into constituent molecules, but that DNA sequence is not kept intact.

robert424 said:
True. But think of a city full of the most Loving, Loyal, Righteous, tender-hearted, Virtuous, people that ever lived on earth. 'Single' also has huge benefits: a lot less emotional baggage, a lot less family responsibilities - you'll get to spend more time with God. The fact that the angels are capable of marriage, but choose singlehood, says a lot about the desirability of singlehood.

Actually, the opposite. Angels were not designed to marry. They didn't choose it, God simply did not give them spouses or designed them for marriage.
The fact that some angels chose a desire to get married, kinda refutes a common trope in answering the lack of marriage in eternity: that seeing God's glory will fulfill you so much you just won't even think about things like marriage or sex. These angels beheld God in all His glory in heaven, and chose to get married to human women anyway. They may have not known it was sin to do so, 1 Enoch says they knew, and still chose, but Enoch isn't canon, canon scripture does not say if they knew ahead of time that it would be sin for them to marry. But either way, they desired marriage and they had no spouses among themselves so they took human wives, despite beholding God in His glory.
Glory wasn't enough to obey God and not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that temptation was too much for Eve after hearing deceitful words. Eve would not even know the concept of being lied to, God was more merciful to her in light of this, placing responsibility on Satan for deceiving her. The punishment He gave to Eve was less than He gave to Adam, who knowingly chose to listen to his wife rather than God (Genesis 3:17 gives the reason of because Adam hearkened to his wife, Adam was not deceived, he made an informed choice, where Eve was deceived into believing a lie). This is I think a primary reason why marriage is ending, because it gives people a relationship that they may choose OVER God. But glory did not prevent that temptation, nor did it prevent temptation of the angels to take wives.
I do not know myself how the sin of fornication is prevented in the New Earth, but the bible does not give a good track record for "glory" being the how. Maybe we're like Barbie and Ken dolls anatomically, or maybe there's a new type of relationship that makes it not fornication.

robert424 said:
Isaiah 65:23 "They will not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; they [are] the seed of the blessed LORD, and their offspring with them."

I believe that there will be tons of orphan babies in the New Earth, that will need adults to take care of them, and I'm sure that God will be asking for adult volunteers and assigning the orphan babies to available adults. And where ever there are babies, the women will gather, and that woman and orphan baby will need support from other adults so there will be plenty of opportunities for 'single' people to form 'celibate friendship groups' to help raise an orphan baby. The New Earth will be a busy place.

That's not what the passage says, it says their offspring won't be born in calamity. It's a direct reversal of the curse on Eve, that her children would be born in calamity.

robert424 · Mar 16, 2025

Jamdoc said:
Yeah none of that works.
The bible does not say there's no sex, that's an implication people make from there not being marriage. But it is not stated anywhere in the bible. That's an assumption. It's a fairly valid assumption, but the bible simply doesn't say it. There may be some other different relationship status on the New Earth that allows for procreation, as I stated Isaiah 65:23 does state that the "seed of the blessed of the Lord" that is, the "descendants" of Jesus, those adopted in, won't give birth to children in calamity (it's a reversal of the curse placed on Eve in Genesis 3), and their offspring will be blessed.
It does however say they won't get married or be given in marriage as an answer to which of the 7 husbands she had on Earth would be her husband in the resurrection. What the Sadducees were attempting to do to Jesus is trick Him, getting Him to answer as YOU are claiming He was, that Jesus would say "all of them" and then declare His teachings false because He just advocated polyandry/polygamy, or tricking Him by having Him choose one, if she's still married to the first then the law has promoted polyandry by allowing her to keep marrying more, or if she's married to the last one then if death released her from the previous six marriages, why didn't it release the last one?
Jesus' answer suckerpunched them, they did not expect the answer of all marriages had been released and nobody will be married to her at all. They couldn't accuse Him of anything, it was an answer they did not expect, and the rationale of being "like the angels" comes from 1 Enoch, where angels were not given spouses because they could not die, therefore did not need to have children to replenish their number. I kind of question the rationale in 1 Enoch considering marriage was given before the fall, before Adam or Eve could die, but that's the only text connection to Jesus' answer that can be found, it cannot be found in the canon old testament at all.

However the reason why the wife is able to remarry as a widow, is because the first marriage, with her deceased former husband, is considered concluded.
Otherwise it'd be adultery to remarry at all, even if your previous spouse dies and you remain alive.
Because the bible not only allows for widows to remarry but in fact considers it law that a widow marry her husband's younger brothers in some cases such as the legal question the Sadducees brought up. This would not be the case if the woman was still considered married to the first husband that passed away.
If marrying a woman who's divorced (except in cases of the woman divorcing because of an adulterous husband) is considered adultery, which is what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 19, then marrying a widow would also be adultery if she's considered still "joined" to her deceased husband. The only logical answer is.. death concludes the covenant. If the covenant can be concluded, then you can also conclude it by divorce, though doing so for any reason other than fornication results in adultery if they remarry.

as for use of the word covenant, it is because when God made both the old and new covenants, it was done as a marriage proposal. God uses the language of marriage and sex as euphemisms for His relationship to His people, particularly in Hosea, where Hosea's wife Gomer was used as an illustration for Israel. God "married" Israel, and they "played the harlot", going after other gods. Spiritual adultery in other words.
Marriage itself is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His Church according to Paul in Ephesians 5. So because God's relationship to us is not biological- we are not begotten sons of God, God has one and only begotten Son, but we are adopted by the new covenant, similarly the Church is the "bride of Christ" by the new covenant. That puts marriage in the light of a covenant relationship. Not a biological one.

No that's not how it works at all. It's not the molecules being broken down and rebuilt into the person's own DNA as components.. but rather the genome sequence. That does not change. Viruses can do this, sure but having sex with someone does not restructure your genome to incorporate their genome into yours. When a virus splices its genome into somatic cell lines they infect it generally causes junk mutations that can cause cancer, and damage, enough of it accelerates to process of aging which is itself, your DNA replication process having errors, and eventually those errors pile up and the genes no longer code for functional proteins as well. You don't take on new phenotypes, your body simply ages and gets worse.

But you won't find that a woman has sex with a man and now suddenly her entire body's cells have become a mix of her own DNA hybridized with the man she slept with. That doesn't work.

In another poster's article what they were talking about is a mother having her son's cells cross the placental barrier, entering the mother's circulatory system and being deposited in her thyroid, so some of the cells in the thyroid were actually her son's cells, and had XY chromosomes.

This isn't what happens with ingestion, where the DNA is metabolized into much smaller molecules. These were intact cells that circulated in blood and found themselves depositing in the thyroid gland. Since they were likely embryonic stem cells they end up being signaled to differentiate into functional thyroid cells. This would be more akin to an organ transplant. If you were to have a kidney transplant the kidney you receive would have another person (the donor's) DNA, but would function as your kidney. It would not alter your own DNA. Sperm doesn't work this way, it's haploid (only having 1 set of Chromosomes) and cannot go through mitosis (cellular division to asexually reproduce copies of itself). Sperm either unites with an egg, and then they become a new sequence of DNA having diploid chromosomes and capable of mitosis.. or it dies, and is broken into constituent molecules, but that DNA sequence is not kept intact.

Actually, the opposite. Angels were not designed to marry. They didn't choose it, God simply did not give them spouses or designed them for marriage.
The fact that some angels chose a desire to get married, kinda refutes a common trope in answering the lack of marriage in eternity: that seeing God's glory will fulfill you so much you just won't even think about things like marriage or sex. These angels beheld God in all His glory in heaven, and chose to get married to human women anyway. They may have not known it was sin to do so, 1 Enoch says they knew, and still chose, but Enoch isn't canon, canon scripture does not say if they knew ahead of time that it would be sin for them to marry. But either way, they desired marriage and they had no spouses among themselves so they took human wives, despite beholding God in His glory.
Glory wasn't enough to obey God and not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that temptation was too much for Eve after hearing deceitful words. Eve would not even know the concept of being lied to, God was more merciful to her in light of this, placing responsibility on Satan for deceiving her. The punishment He gave to Eve was less than He gave to Adam, who knowingly chose to listen to his wife rather than God (Genesis 3:17 gives the reason of because Adam hearkened to his wife, Adam was not deceived, he made an informed choice, where Eve was deceived into believing a lie). This is I think a primary reason why marriage is ending, because it gives people a relationship that they may choose OVER God. But glory did not prevent that temptation, nor did it prevent temptation of the angels to take wives.
I do not know myself how the sin of fornication is prevented in the New Earth, but the bible does not give a good track record for "glory" being the how. Maybe we're like Barbie and Ken dolls anatomically, or maybe there's a new type of relationship that makes it not fornication.

That's not what the passage says, it says their offspring won't be born in calamity. It's a direct reversal of the curse on Eve, that her children would be born in calamity.

Jamdoc. Congradulations on an excellent analysis of the subject. Well done.

"The bible does not say there's no sex, that's an implication"... "That's an assumption".

I reply: Agreed.

And my argument that Jesus's statements was 'that she would remain married to all of them' is also merely a conclusion that is merely implied from the statements of Jesus. Jesus did not say that explicitly.

Would you agree that the statement of Christ: "neither married nor given in marriage" directly states that there will be no new marriage?

Regarding the Question of the Status of Present or Past Marriages after the Resurrections:

Jamdoc said:
Jesus' answer sucker punched them, they did not expect the answer of all marriages had been released and nobody will be married to her at all.

What is the basis of concluding that "nobody will be married to her"? We can't conclude that from the statement of Jesus: "neither marry nor given in marriage", which is the main thing that Jesus said. The conclusion does not logically follow from the statement. In other words: We can't say that in Mark 12:25, Jesus said "they neither marry nor are given in marriage" therefore, 'none of the seven husbands will be married to her on the resurrection day'. That does not make logical sense. For one thing, Jesus is speaking in the future tense, and the conclusion, 'nobody will be married to her', is referring to the woman's seven past marriages. Second, your argument is making an errorant assumption. You argument is assuming that Jesus said 'they neither are married nor are given in marriage', but that is not what the text says.

Mark 12:25 "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but as as the angels which are in heaven." [JKV]

but here is the errant text as presumed by your argument:

Mark 12:25 "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither are married, nor are given in marriage, but as as the angels which are in heaven." [as errantly presumed by your argument].

There is a big difference between the words 'marry' and 'married'. Using the word 'marry', refers to a future action. 'Married' refers to something that happened in the past, or, to a present status. The phrase "... they neither marry..." says nothing about their present status, therefore your statement that:

all marriages had been released and nobody will be married to her at all

can not be validly concluded from Mark 12:25.

On the Remarriage of a Widow

However the reason why the wife is able to remarry as a widow, is because the first marriage, with her deceased former husband, is considered concluded.
Otherwise it'd be adultery to remarry at all, even if your previous spouse dies and you remain alive.

Regarding the statement: "... the first marriage, with her deceased former husband, is considered concluded."

Hmmm ... well, define 'concluded'.

I would rephrase it as:

'the first marriage, with her deceased former husband, is considered temporarily suspended.'

The Bible does not punish: bigamy, polygamy or polyandry. If a widow remarries, then she is either a bigamist, or a polygamist, and neither one is blessed or condoned by any Christian Church, plus our civil governments have made bigamy a crime. By rights, if they actually enforced their laws, they would be putting people in jail for that.

The fact that 1 Cor.7:39 says, "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is a liberty to be married to whom she will ..." does not necessarily mean that the death of her husband dissolves their marriage. I interpret this text to be giving an illustration, or an example, about the characteristics of the 'civil law'. If Christ can take up his power and his authority and his 'marriage to his church', after he was resurrected, then the same should apply to the husband who died in 1 Cor. 7:39.

Lev. 21:14 [God, speaking on the topic of rules for the Levites] "A widow or a divorced woman or a defiled woman or a harlot - these he [a Levite] shall not marry; but he shall take a virgin of his own people as wife." (NKJV) (same also in Ezek. 44:22) [Note: the widow is counted with the divorcees and the raped and harlots as persons who cannot marry a Levite.]

1 Tim. 5:9 "Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man." [speaking of who is eligible for financial support from the church - only the wife of one man. This also mirrors the qualification of a Pastor as a 'husband of one wife'. (1 Tim.3:2.)]

On the Proposition: Levitical Marriages Prove that Death Voids Marriage.

Otherwise it'd be adultery to remarry at all, even if your previous spouse dies and you remain alive.

It appears that 'adultery' is only 'adultery' while the husband is still alive. After the husband dies, the crime does not go by the name of 'adultery'. Additionally, it is also a fact that that no punishment is prescribed for the crime of 'bigamy' in the bible, but God does give rules to Kings, saying in Deut. 17:17 "neither shall he multiply wives to himself ..." which is a prohibition against polygamy. I suppose that the punishment for the crime of 'bigamy', is bigamy - which is sort of a living hell in itself. LOL.

Because the bible not only allows for widows to remarry but in fact considers it law that a widow marry her husband's younger brothers ...

Deut. {25:5} If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. {25:6} And it shall be, [that] the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother [which is] dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

I note two things in this text. First, the purpose of this regulation was to prevent any family names from going extinct. Considering this fact, suggests that it only applies to the Israelites, and does not apply to humanity as a whole, so one could hardly call it a "law". Secondly, the phrase: "her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife", suggests that "take her to him to wife' is a euphemism for sex, and does not imply a husband-wife relationship, in fact twice it refers to him as "husband's brother" and not 'husband'. That distinction sounds significant to me. It sounds like he is merely a sex-slave or concubine with no status.
[Note: this last paragraph contradicts my previous statement I made that 'sex is marriage'. Obviously, I need more thought on that.]

... then marrying a widow would also be adultery if she's considered still "joined" to her deceased husband. The only logical answer is.. death concludes the covenant. If the covenant can be concluded, then you can also conclude it by divorce ...

I argue:

1. marrying a widow would not be adultery, because the husband is dead. The name of the crime, after the death of a husband is 'bigamy' which has no specified punishment.

2. The Covenant cannot be 'concluded', nor 'voided', nor 'terminated', nor 'ended', for any reason:

because:

a. A Levirate Marriage [Deut. 25:5 KJV] was not a 'husband-wife' relationship. First, the role of the 'husband's brother', was only as a concubine, or stud, and the text never refers to the brother as 'husband'. Second, this regulation was for the purpose of: "that his name be not put out of Israel" (Deut. 25:5), therefore it only applies to Israel, and not to humanity in general. It is merely a civil regulation and not a universal law.

b. Death is only temporary - it is described as 'sleep' by God. (Ps. 13:3 "sleep of death"). Does the marriage covenant become 'concluded' when the husband is having his nap? No. When Christ died, all his rights, authority and relationships continued, and he took them all up - including his marriage with his church - when he resurrected, therefore the covenant is not 'concluded' by his death.

c. King David demanded back his wife Michal even after she had been divorced from David, by her father King Saul, and remarried to another man. (1 Sam. 25:44; 2 Sam. 3:14) And King David even referred to Michal as his wife when he demanded her return. This proves that remarriage does not 'conclude', or 'void', or 'terminate', the original marriage.

On DNA Exchange - Becoming 'One'.

I wrote: Yes, your DNA is merged with the DNA of what you eat.

Jamdoc replied: "Not that's not how it works at all."

Ok, ok, you are right. I admit it. My sentence was a horrible sentence - not what I was trying to convey at all. What I was trying to say, was that, everything that comes into your body, is broken down and recycled and the part that is recycled is made - by your body - into all your body parts, including your DNA. This also includes, say, for example, a monomer of DNA, and it can become of the DNA of the woman. I'm not talking about whole genes - merely a monomer or a very short fragment of DNA - nowhere close to a gene. Still, it is 'becoming one' from the view of a Biologist.

Regarding your Section on the Marriage of Angels.

Excellent analysis. I agree with almost all of it. Well done.

sincerely

robert424

Jamdoc · Mar 16, 2025

robert424 said:
Would you agree that the statement of Christ: "neither married nor given in marriage" directly states that there will be no new marriage?

No I would not, because He was answering a question on which of her husbands she'd already married would she be married to after the Resurrection. This was an answer you have to read in context. The context is asking specifically about marriages that had already been done and so Jesus' answer means there is no marriage at all.
If Jesus did not mean that she wouldn't still be married to her previous husbands, then the criticisms I outlined against Jesus' teaching would have been pounced on by the Sadducees, either: Jesus was promoting Polygamy/Polyandry (if married to all), Adultery (if the first marriage was the most valid), or it makes no sense that death did not break the last marriage if it broke the prior 6.
The only answer that completely stopped their line of questioning was "none of them"
Now to us who think of marriage as more than just legal rights for inheritance purposes (why that Levirate marriage law existed in the first place to keep inheritance within the first son's name and line), we might be frustrated with the Sadducees, I for one would have pressed on Jesus asking Him about what kinds of relationships people have in the resurrection, I might bring up Isaiah 65:23 and ask about that in particular. But we weren't there to ask, and so the Sadducee's singular focus on inheritance law is all we get, Isaiah 56 regarding Eunuchs, also has to do with inheritance, doesn't really answer the questions for people who see marriage as more than just inheritance.
So Isaiah 65:23 remains a mystery to us, relationships between men and women on the New Earth remain a mystery to us.

robert424 said:
On the Remarriage of a Widow

On the Proposition: Levitical Marriages Prove that Death Voids Marriage.

Both of these arguments fail, because bigamy is still adultery.
In fact God does tell the Israelites not to have multiple wives, at least their kings:

Deuteronomy 17

14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

As God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts, so He allowed kings like David and Solomon to have multiple wives even though they were not supposed to, it's not what God intended for humans to do. It was still wrong, even if not specifically punished, and in some ways, it was punished. David lost a son due to adultery with Bathsheba. He even got her husband killed so he could have her (this is gone over in 2 Samuel 11-12)
If having sex is marriage and bigamy and polygamy isn't punished then there is no such thing as adultery, it's just becoming polygamy which is unpunished. But David was punished with the death of the child he conceived with Bathsheba
Solomon multiplied wives and the specific reason God said not to multiply wives happened, they turned his heart from his God, he made high places and groves for his foreign wives.
Marriage is a picture of the relationship between God and His people.. what kind of picture do you paint when you have multiple spouses? That you have multiple gods and are a pagan and playing the harlot spiritually.

robert424 said:
On DNA Exchange - Becoming 'One'.

I wrote: Yes, your DNA is merged with the DNA of what you eat.

Jamdoc replied: "Not that's not how it works at all."

Ok, ok, you are right. I admit it. My sentence was a horrible sentence - not what I was trying to convey at all. What I was trying to say, was that, everything that comes into your body, is broken down and recycled and the part that is recycled is made - by your body - into all your body parts, including your DNA. This also includes, say, for example, a monomer of DNA, and it can become of the DNA of the woman. I'm not talking about whole genes - merely a monomer or a very short fragment of DNA - nowhere close to a gene. Still, it is 'becoming one' from the view of a Biologist.

Things made of the same building blocks isn't important, what's important is a person's genome, that's the blueprint for them as a person.
Biological relatives contain large parts of the same genome, that's why children look like their parents or grandparents or even their uncles or aunts, they share a lot of the same alleles
People do not however look like their stepmother/stepfather or their mother in law,/father in law. Marriage is a relationship in law, not biology.

robert424 said:
Regarding your Section on the Marriage of Angels.

Excellent analysis. I agree with almost all of it. Well done.

sincerely

robert424

It's something I think about a lot, the implications that it has, and why God would create marriage and then later change His mind about it.
Between Adam consciously choosing to die with his wife rather than live forever without her but obedient to God, and angels disobeying God to take human wives, and with how strong of a temptation sex is out of all the sins fornication is one of the only ones specified in Acts 15:29 (most other sins are covered by the 2 commandments of love God and love your neighbor, but people can easily say that sex is an act of love so having sex with your neighbor is loving them, the Apostles made sure to specify not to do that), and is a sin that you're told to FLEE from... Sexuality is the one thing where it's hard to determine how there will never be sin again on the New Earth.
You can't murder if everyone's immortal.
You wouldn't steal if God provides all things freely, no point in coveting any of your neighbor's belongings if God simply gives you one too.
But sex? People will desire that unless it's provided for, or they're physically not able to do it (and they might still desire it having memory of a time when they could)
Most people will just parrot out "glory!"
but Angels beheld Glory, they still wanted wives.

So to me it remains a mystery.
God said He is making ALL things new, that would include relationships.

com7fy8 · Mar 16, 2025

If we understand fornication to be pre-marital sex . . . it is kind of hard for a married person to commit "fornication".

But in case a woman fools a guy into believing she is a virgin so he'll marry her - - *her* fornication could be grounds for divorce, possibly.

Of course, under Mosaic Law it would carry the death penalty for her >

Deuteronomy 22:20-21

And adultery carries the death penalty.

There would be no need for a divorce of someone who will be executed. So, in any case, I see how Jesus is not calling for the Jews to use their Mosaic death penalty . . . for fornication or for adultery.

And so . . . likewise . . . I see He also is not interested in divorce.

But what about abuse? And on we could go.

A number of us can learn how to walk with God so He is guiding us so we do not marry the wrong person.

Prevention can work quite well ! - - - better than choosing who we decide is the best debater and scholar telling us how to interpret a verse of the Bible. After all, we can pick and choose who matches with our motives of our character.

However, if we get mature and submissive with God, we have the benefit of His creativity in His peace, for handling anything.

Der Alte · Mar 16, 2025

johansen said:
To some extent none of this matters because no one post Christ has the authority to separate from their spouse for any reason except as directed or given permission by God.

Sometimes you pray for your enemies..sometimes against.. im not saying you have to endure abuse but you are not free to re marry until God nullifies the vows you made to your prior partner.

I know most of you say "forsaking all others" as a cop out to "till death do us part"... But your heart is often not that legalistic.

Some people when finding out their partner cheated on them are initially filled with joy that their partner finally found someone to love..

That may be what your denomination teaches but I don't see any scripture supporting this position.

johansen · Mar 17, 2025

Der Alte said:
That may be what your denomination teaches but I don't see any scripture supporting this position.

"Moses out of the hardness of your hearts allowed you to divorce your wives".

Between that. Jesus, hosea.

The standard was set.

No divorce.

"Not for fornication" as already explained my indeed mean "not even for fornication"

johansen · Mar 17, 2025

com7fy8 said:
If we understand fornication to be pre-marital sex . . . it is kind of hard for a married person to commit "fornication".

They had this thing where they betroth a girl after puberty to a man. So that if someone else slept with her, they could kill him by default and not have to ask the question, what if it was consensual and the girl and the other man should marry instead..

Its a functional and practical way around the law, to preserve control over the girls, but no doubt God was not pleased with it.

So joseph being a good man, wanted to put mary away quietly so as not to accuse her of sleeping with someone.... (Would she even admit who?) (Was it consentual or not) (Should she be killed too?) Etc.

So. I know the argument that Jesus was actually saying: even if your betrothed girl fornicates(with someone else), you cannot divorce her.

This is why i said: only God can nullify your vows.

johansen · Mar 17, 2025

com7fy8 said:
Of course, under Mosaic Law it would carry the death penalty for her >

I think it goes without saying that moses, out of the hardness of their hearts, applies to more than just the one law Jesus spoke of.

HIM · Mar 17, 2025

robert424 said:
This issue with παρεκτος desperately needs to be investigated by the Professionals, since such a study is beyond my skill set.

For the learned and unlearned, the less spoken the better.

Matt 5:32 ἐγὼ δὲ But I λέγω Say ὑμῖν To You ὅτι That ὃς ἂν Whoever ἀπολύσῃ Shall Put Away τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ His Wife, παρεκτὸς Except λόγου On Account πορνείας Of Fornication, ποιεῖ Causes αὐτὴν Her μοιχᾶσθαι, To Commit Adultery; καὶ And ὃς ἐὰν Whoever ἀπολελυμένην Her Who Has Been Put Away γαμήσῃ Shall Marry, μοιχᾶται Commits Adultery.

BDAG
παρεκτός adv. (=παρέκ Hom. et al., fr. παρά, ἐκ)
pert. to being different and in addition to someth. else, w. focus on being external, besides, outside, abs. χωρὶς τῶν π. (sc. γινομένων) apart from what I leave unmentioned or what is external (i.e. sufferings, etc.) 2 Cor 11:28.
used as prep. w. gen., pert. to someth. left out of other considerations, apart from, except for (Dositheus 45, 3 παρεκτὸς ἐμοῦ, Lat. praeter me; Cyrill. Scyth. p. 34, 4 π. σαββάτου=except on the Sabbath; Geopon. 13, 15, 7; Etym. Magn. p. 652, 18; TestJob 30:5; TestZeb 1:4; Dt 1:36 Aq.) Mt 5:32; 19:9 v.l. (AOtto, Die Eheschdg. im Mt ’39; KStaab, D. Unauflöslichkeit d. Ehe u. d. sog. ‘Ehebruchsklauseln’ b. Mt 5:32 u. 19:9: EEichmann Festschr. ’40, 435–52, ZKT 67, ’43, 36–44; HBaltensweiler, D. Ehe im NT ’67, 59–102; GStrecker, ZNW 69, ’78, 52–56. S. also πορνεία 2); Ac 26:29. π. θεοῦ without God, leading away from God D 6:1.—DELG s.v. ἐξ. M-M. EDNT.

HIM · Mar 17, 2025

robert424 said:
My point is that 'ei me' is translated as 'except' a very low percentage of the time.

But the understanding of an exception is there. Here are just the text in Matthew.

Matt 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Matt 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Matt 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Matt 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Matt 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Matt 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Matt 14:17 And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes.
Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matt 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Matt 17:8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.
Matt 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Matt 19:9 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.
Matt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Matt 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
Matt 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Matt 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Except is an acceptable translation in all those occurrences. Shall we continue?

Let's, here are a couple from the LXX

Gen 3:11 And [2 said 3 to him 1 God], Who announced to you that you are naked, unless from the tree of which I gave charge to you, saying, This alone you are not to eat from it -- you ate.

Gen 31:42 Unless the God of my father Abraham, and the fear of Isaac was with me, now then would [2 me empty 1 you have sent]. My humiliation and the toil of my hands God saw, and he reproved you yesterday.

Exod 33:15 And he says to him, Unless you yourself should go with us, [2 not 4 me 1 you should 3 lead] from here.

Num 22:33 And seeing me, the donkey turned aside from me this third time; and unless she turned aside from me, now then you indeed I would have killed, [4 her 1 and 2 then 3 I would have preserved].

Num 22:34 And Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, I have sinned, for I did not have knowledge that you opposed me in the way to meet with me. And now, unless it not be sufficient to you, I shall return.

Deut 32:27 Unless they should say it was on account of the anger of the enemies, that in no way should they live a long time, and that in no way [2 join in making an attack 1 their opponents], lest they should say, [3 hand 1 Our 2 high], and not the LORD did all these things.

Deut 32:27 Unless they should say it was on account of the anger of the enemies, that in no way should they live a long time, and that in no way [2 join in making an attack 1 their opponents], lest they should say, [3 hand 1 Our 2 high], and not the LORD did all these things.

HIM · Mar 17, 2025

johansen said:
I think it goes without saying that moses, out of the hardness of their hearts, applies to more than just the one law Jesus spoke of.

Nice. Even in the case of fornication we should try to work it out. Divorce only being a consideration if the situation is not repented from and reconciled in forgiveness.

com7fy8 · Mar 17, 2025

johansen said:
So. I know the argument that Jesus was actually saying: even if your betrothed girl fornicates(with someone else), you cannot divorce her.

The issue with the capital punishment case is that the woman knowingly tries to fool the man, in order to marry him.

It is not only about if she has fornicated.

Lying to a person of God is a major issue. When Ananias lied to Peter, he was lying also to God. And he died, right there.

com7fy8 · Mar 17, 2025

HIM said:
Nice. Even in the case of fornication we should try to work it out. Divorce only being a consideration if the situation is not repented from and reconciled in forgiveness.

Like I have offered, what really matters is if the one who fornicated has lied about it.

"Of course", Jesus has me forgive the person of her past. And what matters is how now she has become and loves.

I know someone who now seems like a genuinely Christian person. Any mature Christian man would want her, I would say. So, how ever would I "need" to know anything about her past??

Der Alte · Mar 17, 2025

johansen said:
"Moses out of the hardness of your hearts allowed you to divorce your wives".
Between that. Jesus, hosea.
The standard was set.
No divorce.
"Not for fornication" as already explained my indeed mean "not even for fornication"

One can make the scripture say almost anything by quoting vss. out-of-context

Matthew 19:8-9

(8) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

(9) 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.

Matthew 5:31-32

(31) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

(32) But I say unto you, That 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.

johansen · Mar 17, 2025

Der Alte said:
but from the beginning it was not so.

Thats what this whole thread is about...

How Badly has Matthew 19:9 been Corrupted?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Active Member

Active Member

Watching and Praying Always

Active Member

Regarding the Question of the Status of Present or Past Marriages after the Resurrections:​

On the Remarriage of a Widow​

On the Proposition: Levitical Marriages Prove that Death Voids Marriage.​

On DNA Exchange - Becoming 'One'.​

Regarding your Section on the Marriage of Angels.​

Watching and Praying Always

On the Remarriage of a Widow​

On the Proposition: Levitical Marriages Prove that Death Voids Marriage.​

On DNA Exchange - Becoming 'One'.​

Regarding your Section on the Marriage of Angels.​

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Friend

Friend

Friend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Regarding the Question of the Status of Present or Past Marriages after the Resurrections:

On the Remarriage of a Widow

On the Proposition: Levitical Marriages Prove that Death Voids Marriage.

On DNA Exchange - Becoming 'One'.

Regarding your Section on the Marriage of Angels.

On the Remarriage of a Widow

On the Proposition: Levitical Marriages Prove that Death Voids Marriage.

On DNA Exchange - Becoming 'One'.

Regarding your Section on the Marriage of Angels.