Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, that is more a question about the Bible verse of 1 Cor 7:15, which I can see that William Heth touched upon. I feel that that verse contains a very different set of issues, and maybe we can start another thread on it if you desire?
I am not well studied in 1 Cor 7:15. I used to think it was not about freedom to remarry, but the RCC treats it as such, since John Chrysostom interpreted it like that in the 4th century. The RCC considers baptism the mark of distinction between a believer and an unbeliever. If a person is baptized he is a believer.Personally I feel the two issues are deeply linked, your conclusions are judging me as an adulterer. That is a very serious position to take.
If you take out the "he is not suddenly introducing an 'exception' into the debate" part of your post, I agree with everything. As for that part, I think I need clarification on your application: Since He specifies that the non-sexual divorces of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 lead to adultery when one marries a second wife, wouldn't He be implying that the sexual ones are excepted? Otherwise, why specify "not over porneia"?It is my belief, that the whole passage of Matthew 19:3-12 is constructed as a discussion of the much debated passage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. I believe that the wording “except” in Matthew 19:9 is a mistranslation since the original greek says “mey epi porneia”, which translates as “not over porneia”. In my understanding, there were 2 kinds of validation for divorce in rabbinic teaching, (1) the sexual ones, which required a death penalty on the incontinent spouse, and (2) the non-sexual ones, using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for their blueprint.
So when Jesus says “not over fornication” in Matthew 19:9, he is not suddenly introducing an “exception” into the debate, he is simply referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 using different language. So in effect he says, whosoever divorces his wife using arguments based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and marries another, is committing adultery. This means that the first marriage has NOT been ended by the divorce paper, and the man is still married to his first wife. Also, his cohabiting with the new woman is an act of adultery, an ongoing act for that.
So to reiterate my main point: “not over fornication” is simply a technical term to distinguish different kinds of divorce. It does not introduce an exception.
This is the point at which theology does not always serve us well...
The hub of truth is the Resurrection of Jesus and hence the Father heart of God.
It is so easy to be to taken up by technical issues of language and principle and Law that the reality of the Love of of Jesus and His Father's Heart gets lost.
We saw this when He wrote on the sand.
He so wonderfully led me to a second wife after 10 years of singleness since I was divorced against my will by an unbeliever.
My new marriage of 35 years and 5 children bares testimony of His great love and faithful fruitfulness.
What theology demands is not always His Living Word - this is obvious given that what passes for good theology has driven believers to hideous crimes of hatred against brothers and sisters down through history.
This continues to this day - some demand that I am in adultery and refuse fellowship.
Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do...
As I stated, I believe that there were 2 categories of ways to get out of marriage in rabbinic teachingIf you take out the "he is not suddenly introducing an 'exception' into the debate" part of your post, I agree with everything. As for that part, I think I need clarification on your application: Since He specifies that the non-sexual divorces of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 lead to adultery when one marries a second wife, wouldn't He be implying that the sexual ones are excepted? Otherwise, why specify "not over porneia"?
In reality they may divorce for other unfaithful behavior such as alcoholism, addiction, gambling, theft, assault and battery, etc. It happens all the time.It is my belief, that the whole passage of Matthew 19:3-12 is constructed as a discussion of the much debated passage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. I believe that the wording “except” in Matthew 19:9 is a mistranslation since the original greek says “mey epi porneia”, which translates as “not over porneia”. In my understanding, there were 2 kinds of validation for divorce in rabbinic teaching, (1) the sexual ones, which required a death penalty on the incontinent spouse, and (2) the non-sexual ones, using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for their blueprint.
So when Jesus says “not over fornication” in Matthew 19:9, he is not suddenly introducing an “exception” into the debate, he is simply referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 using different language. So in effect he says, whosoever divorces his wife using arguments based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and marries another, is committing adultery. This means that the first marriage has NOT been ended by the divorce paper, and the man is still married to his first wife. Also, his cohabiting with the new woman is an act of adultery, an ongoing act for that.
So to reiterate my main point: “not over fornication” is simply a technical term to distinguish different kinds of divorce. It does not introduce an exception.
In reality yes, people do many things, but I am thinking about how to stay within the confines of what Jesus taught, to "stay in His teaching". I find that Jesus' teaching was radically family oriented, and I believe that the reason was, that family was created to show who God is. In the verses of Genesis 1:26-28, try reading "husband and wife" instead of "male and female", and there you have it, family in the image of God.In reality they may divorce for other unfaithful behavior such as alcoholism, addiction, gambling, theft, assault and battery, etc. It happens all the time.
Matthew and Mark record the same discussion.In order to see what Jesus would say to those adultery divorces, you should then go into the account of Mark 10, where the "exception" is simply not there, meaning, the same ruling applies to adultery divorces, which also are not valid.
An example of the God's graciousness ...He so wonderfully led me to a second wife after 10 years of singleness since I was divorced against my will by an unbeliever.
My new marriage of 35 years and 5 children bares testimony of His great love and faithful fruitfulness.
Sounds like Pharisees ...This continues to this day - some demand that I am in adultery and refuse fellowship.
How odd then that He didn't marry ...I find that Jesus' teaching was radically family oriented, and I believe that the reason was, that family was created to show who God is.
The two who marry should stay together. Children need support. People should not be desperate to marry, for this might lead to choosing an unstable and immoral mate.In reality yes, people do many things, but I am thinking about how to stay within the confines of what Jesus taught, to "stay in His teaching". I find that Jesus' teaching was radically family oriented, and I believe that the reason was, that family was created to show who God is. In the verses of Genesis 1:26-28, try reading "husband and wife" instead of "male and female", and there you have it, family in the image of God.
Genesis 1:26-28
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
It is my belief, that the whole passage of Matthew 19:3-12 is constructed as a discussion of the much debated passage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. I believe that the wording “except” in Matthew 19:9 is a mistranslation since the original greek says “mey epi porneia”, which translates as “not over porneia”. In my understanding, there were 2 kinds of validation for divorce in rabbinic teaching, (1) the sexual ones, which required a death penalty on the incontinent spouse, and (2) the non-sexual ones, using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for their blueprint.
So when Jesus says “not over fornication” in Matthew 19:9, he is not suddenly introducing an “exception” into the debate, he is simply referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 using different language. So in effect he says, whosoever divorces his wife using arguments based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and marries another, is committing adultery. This means that the first marriage has NOT been ended by the divorce paper, and the man is still married to his first wife. Also, his cohabiting with the new woman is an act of adultery, an ongoing act for that.
So to reiterate my main point: “not over fornication” is simply a technical term to distinguish different kinds of divorce. It does not introduce an exception.
If a man becomes abusive and strikes his wife repeatedly and states he is going to kill her, is the sin of her committing adultery by divorcing him less severe than the sin of him murdering her because she stayed?Hi Peter dona. Actually what jesus was introducing was a cancellation for divorce and remarriage except for illicit sex! When you cited the Greek you left out a very important conditional preposition.
εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ This is translated as "if it not be for fornication" (porneia). what Jesus is saying here is that divorce and remarriage for every other cause except illicit sex causes adultery!
If a man becomes abusive and strikes his wife repeatedly and states he is going to kill her, is the sin of her committing adultery by divorcing him less severe than the sin of him murdering her because she stayed?
If a man becomes abusive and strikes his wife repeatedly and states he is going to kill her, is the sin of her committing adultery by divorcing him less severe than the sin of him murdering her because she stayed?
It can become a long discussion which gospel was the first. I will only say, that church tradition has it that Matthew was the first and originally was in hebrew. For the last hundred years many have accepted the hypothesis that Mark or some "Q" was first. But that goes with your scientific preference not with written history.Matthew and Mark record the same discussion.
Mark leaves out the exception.
Matthew (one of the twelve) was present for the discussion.
Mark (a follower of Peter) ... was not present and recorded Peter's testimony on the discussion. Mark is the shortest (and is thought to be the first) gospel ... and his gospel is presumed to have served as a framework ... to which Matthew and Luke added detail which was left out ...
Very scholarly of youHi Peter dona. Actually what jesus was introducing was a cancellation for divorce and remarriage except for illicit sex! When you cited the Greek you left out a very important conditional preposition.
εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ This is translated as "if it not be for fornication" (porneia). what Jesus is saying here is that divorce and remarriage for every other cause except illicit sex causes adultery!
I avoid local news much of the time, too much crime scene reporting.How about neither...
I avoid local news much of the time, too much crime scene reporting.
I have been reading the Talmud Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin were judges who tried people for crimes. Caiaphas was described as a chief priest. Elsewhere he was described as presiding over the Sanhedrin. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, a crime punishable be death. They used false witnesses against him. In the NIV version Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin.?
As nolidad said - both are sin...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?