How Badly has Matthew 19:9 been Corrupted?

[RBarnes]

Did you? The lead paragraph. "This article updates and vastly expands the research from my last post titled: Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research (from July 4, 2021). I am, here, exploring whether, or not, the Greek word ει in the exception clause of Matthew 19:9 changes over time and whether or not, it has any doctrinal ramifications. Conclusions are still tentative at this point."

Yes.

 

[Der Alte]

All I know that the ει [if] of Matthew 19:9 has been proven to be a mistake, so it is highly probable that the translation of parektos is also a mistake. We can't set one up against the other to create an unnecessary contradiction. This issue must be addressed, researched and solved.

One scholar's opinion does not prove a mistake.

But wait, there is more: a second example of the weakness of translating parektos as 'except'.
In Matthew 5:32, the 'so-called exception clause' is: 'παρεκτος λογου πορνειας' (except for fornication). So, why do they ignore the word λογου? Why don't they translate it? There is definitely something fishy going here.
Allow me to make some, wild, and probably ignorant, and maybe dead wrong speculation here. Could λογου be translated as 'say', (as we use it in English, to introduce an example), and the phrase be translated as, 'besides, say [for example] for fornication'. If this is a possible and valid interpretation, then it would be consistent with Matthew 19:9, which is no exception at all, but merely a more specific example of 'something that is adultery'.

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since Christ founded His church. Here is how they translate.​

EOB Matt 19:9 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for reason of sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery;' and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.​

Matt 5:32.​

31It was also said, “Whoever shall divorce’ his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce,’ 32 but I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for the cause of sexual immorality), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a woman put away in this manner commits adultery.​

Also see.​

Acts 26:29​

(29) And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except [parektos] these bonds.​

2 Corinthians 11:28​

(28) Beside [parektos] those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.​

Link to EOB online.​

The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The New Testament (The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible)

archive.org

 

[robert424]

One scholar's opinion does not prove a mistake.

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since Christ founded His church. Here is how they translate.​

EOB Matt 19:9 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for reason of sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery;' and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.​

Matt 5:32.​

31It was also said, “Whoever shall divorce’ his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce,’ 32 but I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for the cause of sexual immorality), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a woman put away in this manner commits adultery.​

Also see.​

Acts 26:29​

(29) And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except [parektos] these bonds.​

2 Corinthians 11:28​

(28) Beside [parektos] those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.​

Link to EOB online.​

The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The New Testament (The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible)

archive.org

Thank you for your comments.

True, but you are quoting an English translation of their Greek New Testament. Here is their Greek Version:
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται· καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.
[emphasis added]

Notice that there is no ει in their Greek New Testament Version, therefore the English translation of 'except for fornication', is a mistake - it is not a valid English translation - and even the Greek Orthodox Church, just like everybody else, is translating this greek phrase as 'except - whether the ει is there or not!

As far as the Greek Orthodox Church's translation of παρεκτος (parektos); BlueletterBible.org (G3924) tell us that this word only occurs in the Bible three times, translating it as: 1. savings (1x), except (1x), be without (1x). A little further down on that same page, under the title, 'Outline of biblical usage', it says that one usage, is translating it as "besides". So, as an alternative to translating the Matthew 5:32, 'exception phrase' as 'except for fornication', would a legitimate english translation of 'parektos logou porneias', be 'beside say [for example] for fornication'. Personally, I don't know if such a suggestion would be possible - it is merely my speculation. Maybe an expert could weigh in on the issue, as this is beyond my skill set. I am not a trained Theologian - an expert in Greek. I am merely a word counter and Bible enthusiast.

So, in summary, my main point is that the Greek Orthodox English translation of of Matthew 19:9 from Greek to English is - for sure - mistaken, because the inclusion of ει is a mistake, (and even their GNT version excludes it), and in like manner their translation of the Matthew 5:32 'exception clause' from Greek to English, could also be mistaken, or, at least, it is merely one opinion among other equally valid interpretations. Just because the Greek Orthodox Church is 'Greek', doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. It would sure be nice to hear their analysis of this issue.

----------------
citation:

Greek New Testament - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America - Orthodox Church

www.goarch.org

Greek New Testament of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
(GNT online) The Authirzed 1904 Greek New Testament

www.blueletterbible.org (accessed: 25 Feb. 2025) G3924 - parektos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
------------------

 

[robert424]

There's a lot of other factors too.
like he's doubled down on the affair rather than repent of it.
and I worry about him doing things like being convinced to kill her for life insurance money (his small business is failing), her losing the house in the divorce, the kid's custody situation being a mess for them, or something like this girl convinces him to kidnap the kids and flee the country.

There's just a point where the adultery is dangerous and not something you can just forgive and forget. Not when he doubles down on his sinful choice.

Yes, I agree. And these things sometimes happen too. It is important to keep your family and yourself safe. I don't think my arguments deny these problems. I am merely questioning the idea that these bad issues terminate the legitimacy of the relationship. If my father beats me for some bad thing I did; he is still my father. My wrong deed does not terminate our relationship.
roberet424

 

[Der Alte]

Thank you for your comments.

True, but you are quoting an English translation of their Greek New Testament. Here is their Greek Version:
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται· καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.
[emphasis added]

Notice that there is no ει in their Greek New Testament Version, therefore the English translation of 'except for fornication', is a mistake - it is not a valid English translation - and even the Greek Orthodox Church, just like everybody else, is translating this greek phrase as 'except - whether the ει is there or not!

As far as the Greek Orthodox Church's translation of παρεκτος (parektos); BlueletterBible.org (G3924) tell us that this word only occurs in the Bible three times, translating it as: 1. savings (1x), except (1x), be without (1x). A little further down on that same page, under the title, 'Outline of biblical usage', it says that one usage, is translating it as "besides". So, as an alternative to translating the Matthew 5:32, 'exception phrase' as 'except for fornication', would a legitimate english translation of 'parektos logou porneias', be 'beside say [for example] for fornication'. Personally, I don't know if such a suggestion would be possible - it is merely my speculation. Maybe an expert could weigh in on the issue, as this is beyond my skill set. I am not a trained Theologian - an expert in Greek. I am merely a word counter and Bible enthusiast.

So, in summary, my main point is that the Greek Orthodox English translation of of Matthew 19:9 from Greek to English is - for sure - mistaken, because the inclusion of ει is a mistake, (and even their GNT version excludes it), and in like manner their translation of the Matthew 5:32 'exception clause' from Greek to English, could also be mistaken, or, at least, it is merely one opinion among other equally valid interpretations. Just because the Greek Orthodox Church is 'Greek', doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. It would sure be nice to hear their analysis of this issue.

----------------
citation:

Greek New Testament - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America - Orthodox Church

www.goarch.org

Greek New Testament of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
(GNT online) The Authirzed 1904 Greek New Testament

www.blueletterbible.org (accessed: 25 Feb. 2025) G3924 - parektos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
------------------

How does the source you quoted translate μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται· καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται?

 

[Der Alte]

Thank you for your comments.

True, but you are quoting an English translation of their Greek New Testament. Here is their Greek Version:
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται· καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.
[emphasis added]

Notice that there is no ει in their Greek New Testament Version, therefore the English translation of 'except for fornication', is a mistake - it is not a valid English translation - and even the Greek Orthodox Church, just like everybody else, is translating this greek phrase as 'except - whether the ει is there or not!

As far as the Greek Orthodox Church's translation of παρεκτος (parektos); BlueletterBible.org (G3924) tell us that this word only occurs in the Bible three times, translating it as: 1. savings (1x), except (1x), be without (1x). A little further down on that same page, under the title, 'Outline of biblical usage', it says that one usage, is translating it as "besides". So, as an alternative to translating the Matthew 5:32, 'exception phrase' as 'except for fornication', would a legitimate english translation of 'parektos logou porneias', be 'beside say [for example] for fornication'. Personally, I don't know if such a suggestion would be possible - it is merely my speculation. Maybe an expert could weigh in on the issue, as this is beyond my skill set. I am not a trained Theologian - an expert in Greek. I am merely a word counter and Bible enthusiast.

So, in summary, my main point is that the Greek Orthodox English translation of of Matthew 19:9 from Greek to English is - for sure - mistaken, because the inclusion of ει is a mistake, (and even their GNT version excludes it), and in like manner their translation of the Matthew 5:32 'exception clause' from Greek to English, could also be mistaken, or, at least, it is merely one opinion among other equally valid interpretations. Just because the Greek Orthodox Church is 'Greek', doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. It would sure be nice to hear their analysis of this issue.

----------------
citation:

Greek New Testament - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America - Orthodox Church

www.goarch.org

Greek New Testament of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
(GNT online) The Authirzed 1904 Greek New Testament

www.blueletterbible.org (accessed: 25 Feb. 2025) G3924 - parektos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
------------------

One opinion does NOT prove a mistake.

 

[Der Alte]

Definition of parektos from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon
παρεκτός adv. left out of other considerations, apart from, except for (Dositheus 45, 3 παρεκτὸς ἐμοῦ, Lat. TQ 123, ’42, 189–206, ZNW 42, ’49, 202ff; KStaab [παρεκτός 2]; AAllgeier, Angelicum 20, ’43, 128–42. δὲ τούτων) χωρὶς τῶν παρεκτός 2 Cor 11:28 (s. παρεκτός 1).—DELG s.v. χώρα.

William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 774.

 

[Jamdoc]

Yes, I agree. And these things sometimes happen too. It is important to keep your family and yourself safe. I don't think my arguments deny these problems. I am merely questioning the idea that these bad issues terminate the legitimacy of the relationship. If my father beats me for some bad thing I did; he is still my father. My wrong deed does not terminate our relationship.
roberet424

Your relationship to your father is not a covenant. A marriage is.

 

[robert424]

I just checked about 10 or so occurrences of ei me and all I saw was "but" and "save" which seem to serve the same purpose as "except." See e.g.

Mark 6:8​

(8) AndG2532 commandedG3853 themG846 thatG2443 they should takeG142 nothingG3367 forG1519 their journey,G3598 saveG1508 [ei me] a staffG4464 only;G3440 noG3361 scrip,G4082 noG3361 bread,G740 noG3361 moneyG5475 inG1519 their purse:G2223​

Mark 9:29​

(29) AndG2532 he saidG2036 unto them,G846 ThisG5124 kindG1085 canG1410 come forthG1831 byG1722 nothing,G3762 butG1508 [ei me] byG1722 prayerG4335 andG2532 fasting.G3521​

And again Matt 5:32 says the same thing but uses parektos instead of ei me.

Mat 5:32 ’but I tell you that whoever divorces his wife except [παρεκτὸς/parektos] for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a woman put away in this manner commits adultery. Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible.​

I just checked about 10 or so occurrences of ei me and all I saw was "but" and "save" which seem to serve the same purpose as "except."

Thank you for your research.


I also came to the same conclusion; that 'ei me' has been translated into English in various ways, such as 'but', and 'save', and these might be interpreted to meet the same purpose as 'except'. Given that that is true, isn't all the more likely then, that when you get rid of the 'ei', in the Greek, then the result will not mean 'except'? How can 'if not' and 'not', both mean the same thing: 'except'? In English, the word 'if', makes a sentence into a conditional. It is a little word, but with big meaning. It seems logical to me that taking out the word 'if', would also take away the conditionality of the remaining sentence.


On the other hand, anyone could say that 'except' for fornication can mean the same as 'not for fornication'. Well maybe. But I argue that 'except' and 'not' have one major difference. The phrase 'except [something]', explicitly states that 'something else' is ok. The phrase 'not [something] merely implies 'something else' is ok. This is a major difference.


For example: if I have a bowl of M&Ms, and I turn my head toward you, and say "Except the red ones", native English speakers will take that as an explicit invitation to help yourself to any of the non-red ones. If I turn my head toward you and say "Not the red ones", most native English speakers would also take that to mean that I am implying they can help themself to non-red ones, but logically speaking, it is not explicitly stated and is merely 'in the interpretation of the hearer'. A non-native English speaker would probably hesitate and not know what to do.


So, the word 'except' and 'not' are not exactly the same.


So, is this a distinction without a difference? Why is this important? It is important because for the last 500 years, the theologians have been saying that Christ said 'except for fornication', therefore divorce is not adultery. But now we know that the ει is a mistaken, so Christ did not say 'except for fornication', but he only said 'not for fornication'.


Now they can only say 'not for fornication' implies that divorce is not adultery. So the exception clause has been reduced from an explicit statement to merely an implication, at best, and even that is merely one person's opinion, and there are other, equally valid opinions. We can't base a major Church Doctrine, such as the Doctrine that allows Divorce and the Doctrine that allows Remarriage after a Divorce, on mere opinions.


But wait, it gets worse.


Now our discussion comes to a huge fault with Protestant Theology. I charge them with 'Intellectual Dishonesty', because they don't spell out their full arguments. They are like poker players who refuse to show all their cards at the end of a hand. They are like Comedians who never explain their jokes. Protestant Theologians don't explain their full arguments so they don't have to expose them to examination, discussion and debate.



Here is the full line-of-logic that Protestants neglect to spell out to you:

'In Matthew 19:9, Jesus says, 'except for fornication', therefore, to divorce your spouse for sexual sin, is not adultery, and if it is not adultery, then it is not a sin, and since it is not a sin, then it is allowed by God.'​

It is not hard to see the faults in this line of logic.


It is easy to get from 'except for fornication' to 'not a sin'. How do you get from 'not for fornication' to 'not a sin'?


Do you see, now the consequences of getting rid of the ει [if]? But if that is not hard enough, what about the faults in the Standard Protestant Line of Logic? How to they get from 'no adultery' to 'not a sin'. Where is their evidence? The answer is that they don't have any evidence because they keep it hidden and never spell it out.


I argue that 'not a sin' does not logically follow from 'not adultery'. How do they know that 'not adultery' means 'not a sin'? I argue that Divorce is always a sin - in every case and in every circumstance.


Divorce is always a sin of:


1. Dishonoring your Parents-in-Law - a violation of the fifth commandment. I can't dishonor any more than by saying, 'You might have been my mother before, but you are noting to me now, because I have a certificate from a Judge'.


2. Holy Wedding Perjury: I promised to love my wife for better or worse, till death do us part, and when I divorce her, I am not fulfilling my vow. So long as I live in the sin of Divorce, I am, continually, committing the sin of Holy Wedding Perjury.


So, you see, it makes no difference whether Matthew 19:9 says 'except for fornication', or 'not for fornication', or even whether or not the entire phrase is legitimate. All Divorce is a sin, period.


This line of argument has always been available, over the last 500 years, but no one used it because everyone thought that Christ gave an 'explicit' exception in Matthew 19:9. Now that we know that the ει [if] is a mistake; now we can see that the 'so called exception clause' is merely someone's opinion, and now the whole doctrine of divorce, is now open for a whole new area of attack.


This is why the difference between the presence or absence of the ει [if] is important.



[Additional fact: Wycliffe (1328-1384) was the first to translate the Latin Bible into English. In Matthew 19:9, in his English translation, he substitutes 'Adultery' for 'Advowtry'. Basically, he was saying that the sin of divorce was Vow-Breaking.]


sincerely

robert424

 

[robert424]

Definition of parektos from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon
παρεκτός adv. left out of other considerations, apart from, except for (Dositheus 45, 3 παρεκτὸς ἐμοῦ, Lat. TQ 123, ’42, 189–206, ZNW 42, ’49, 202ff; KStaab [παρεκτός 2]; AAllgeier, Angelicum 20, ’43, 128–42. δὲ τούτων) χωρὶς τῶν παρεκτός 2 Cor 11:28 (s. παρεκτός 1).—DELG s.v. χώρα.

William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 774.

Interesting. Thank you for posting it.
I can see now where Dr. McFall gets his translation of the exception clause of Matthew 5:32, as 'I'm not talking about fornication'.
I note that 'except for' is still listed last, which I presume means, least important, or least common.
Robert424

 

[robert424]

Your relationship to your father is not a covenant. A marriage is.

The law courts view every relationship as a contract/covenant - bag of rights and responsibilities - even with parents. Don't you think that the marriage relationship is partly covenant and partly physical. After all, two people exchanging DNA in places you can't wash off, sort of makes it partially physical - don't you think? If I donate blood or an organ, doesn't that make me one with them?
The relationship between us and God, is partly covenant and partly physical. We can't get rid of him either. The only out is to go up in a puff of smoke after the judgement day.

 

[robert424]

The law courts view every relationship as a contract/covenant - bag of rights and responsibilities - even with parents. Don't you think that the marriage relationship is partly covenant and partly physical. After all, two people exchanging DNA in places you can't wash off, sort of makes it partially physical - don't you think? If I donate blood or an organ, doesn't that make me one with them?
The relationship between us and God, is partly covenant and partly physical. We can't get rid of him either. The only out is to go up in a puff of smoke after the judgement day.

I still say that divorce does not void a marriage, even if marriage is considered merely a contract or a covenant.
[Image: a Pot, once destroyed, then repaired with lacquer and gold power - using a Japanese Craft called Kintsukuroi.
[Image: Public Domain]

Just as this pot, which was once in pieces; it can be repaired - so can a marriage covenant. A broken pot - even though it is in pieces - is still a pot, and in like manner, a broken covenant, is still a covenant, that can be repaired.

In the Bible are several examples where God insisted that covenants were to be kept, even though they were made in error.
Also, Jonah 2:9 "I will pay that I have vowed."
Jer. 44:25 "ye will surely accomplish your vows and surely perform your vows."
Nah. 1:15 "O Judah, keep thy solemn feasts, perform thy vows"...
[Note, no exceptions at all.]
Where in the bible does it say that we are released from our vows - that breaking a vow, voids it?
As far as I know, that idea is a modern invention, and not Biblical at all.
robert424

 

[Jamdoc]

The law courts view every relationship as a contract/covenant - bag of rights and responsibilities - even with parents. Don't you think that the marriage relationship is partly covenant and partly physical. After all, two people exchanging DNA in places you can't wash off, sort of makes it partially physical - don't you think? If I donate blood or an organ, doesn't that make me one with them?
The relationship between us and God, is partly covenant and partly physical. We can't get rid of him either. The only out is to go up in a puff of smoke after the judgement day.

No, it is entirely 100% a covenant it's a legal arrangement. A parent/child you can't make them unrelated short of modifying someone at the genetic level in every cell in their body.
A husband and wife, well unless it's incest, aren't closely related on a genetic level, they may exchange DNA, and that'd make their children genetically related to both of them, but that exchange doesn't alter each other's DNA to make them related.

There is also the fact that marriage as a relationship ends by default. The Covenant has an expiration date. Either you die, and that covenant is broken and the widowmaker/widow is allowed to form a new covenant with someone else, and all covenant marriages end in the resurrection and there are no more covenant marriages in eternity.
Giving the covenant another term legally where the covenant is broken and having it end there as well, is not exactly a stretch, and that condition being fornication/adultery Once you have violated the covenant, according to the law you were to be put to death, which of course ends that covenant relationship.
If they are not putting adulterers to death, that covenant marriage should still be ended, unless the offending party repents and seeks forgiveness. Because as it stands, that covenant has been shown to be worthless by its violation.

 

[robert424]

No, it is entirely 100% a covenant it's a legal arrangement.

Yes, I agree that everything you have written is the 'standard' position on this issue - generally accepted by almost all Protestants and I'm pretty sure, almost all Catholics too. But I have some reservations - enlighten me if I'm wrong. How do you know that a covenant exists? Where is this covenant in the Bible? I am very suspicious that it is all made-up cultural mumbo-jumbo.

For example:

Jacobus, melancthon Williams; Zenos, Andrew Constantinides; Nourse, Edward Everett; et al. A Standard Bible Dictionary. London and New York: Funk & Wignalls, 1909.

A standard Bible dictionary ; designed as a comprehensive guide to the scriptures, embracing their languages, literature, history, biography, manners and customs, and their theology : Jacobus, Melancthon Williams, 1855-1937 : Free Download, Borrow, a

Electronic reproduction

archive.org

p.520 Section 1: The Legal Character of Marriage in the O.T. Betrothal
In the O.T. marriage belongs within the sphere of individual law, that is, it took place through a commercial contract which was concluded between the man who wished to marry and the man who had control over the woman who was sought in marriage. It concerned to a certain degree also the family or the local community, but the larger public, the people or the state, had no interest in the marriages of individual Israelites. The legal character of marriage is nowhere specifically described in the O.T., but presupposed as understood."

"... the married woman is spoken of as beʻūlath baʻal (Deut. 22:22; Gen. 20:3; cf. Deut. 24:1; Is 54:1; Prov. 30:23); i.e., as 'acquired by a husband,' 'taken into possession.' "


So, as I understand it, Old Testament Marriage was: 'Hey, mister, I'll give you a cow for your daughter." And the man with the daughter would say 'deal', and the sale would be concluded by a handshake and an exchange - end of the deal, because the deal was concluded. Where is the 'covenant' in that? There was no contract spelling out what the buyer could or could not do, nor any punishments for bad behaviour.

Jacobus et al. (1909) says that the legal character of marriage is nowhere spelled out in the Old Testament.

True, today, we have the Wedding Vows, but that was mandated by Archbishop Cranmer's 'Book of Common Prayer' (1549), so that Vow is a modern invention. And even in that vow, no penalties are specified for bad behaviour, so it is hardly law. Before 1549, I read - somewhere - that the bride and groom merely stopped on the front platform of the Church, and she said to him, 'This day, all my worldly good, I thee endow', and it was a cultural understanding that he was in charge of managing all her financial affairs in her best interest, and he could take a management fee for his efforts. Then they went inside to celebrate Mass. And that was it! Where is the Marriage Vow/Covenant in that?

Throughout the middle ages the Church Courts made up rules, such as that 'when the bride accepted the man's proposal, she had to frame her response in the presence tense, and not in the future, for the acceptance of the 'Proposal' to be legally valid. For example, she couldn't say, 'I would marry you', or I 'might' marry your'. She had to say, 'I do marry you', and that is the form spelled out in the 'Book of Common Prayer', and the form the Pastor has to use today. These 'made-up' rules were created by Judges to solve legal problems - because there were - apparently - quite a few court cases where multiple young men all claimed that the girl agreed to marry them - she being rich, and they wanted to manage her fortune and collect large management fees. So, the Wedding Vow we have today, is made up by Judges, not by Parliament, nor by God.

The only thing that I can imagine where this idea of 'marriage as a covenant', comes from is the 'allegorical covenant between God and his Church', or worse, God's covenant with Abraham. If that is where it comes from, then all I have to say, is:

Deut. 31:8 "It is the Lord who goes before you. He will be with your; he will not leave your or forsake you."

And here is a webpage advertised as having 100 Bible Verses where God repeats this promise.

What Does the Bible Say About God Will Never Leave You Or Forsake You?

Bible verses about God Will Never Leave You Or Forsake You

www.openbible.info

Imagine that. God said that 100 times in the Bible.

The overall theme of the Bible is forgiveness and reconciliation of God with his people, as outlined in the 'Plan of Salvation'. That is what the whole Bible is all about.

The Doctrine of Divorce is the opposite of the 'Plan of Salvation'. In fact, Divorce eviscerates, and guts, and destroys the Plan of Salvation. So, as I see it - according to my present understanding - Christians have to choose: we can either have Divorce, or we can have the 'Plan of Salvation', we can't have both.

So, in conclusion, if God says 100 times in the Bible, that he will never leave us, and those who advocate for Divorce claim - what - One or Two verses, at most, to support their cause? So where is their other 98 verses to support Divorce? And where, in the Bible, is this 'covenant' of Marriage, of which you speak? I am suspicious that this 'Marriage Covenant', is just made-up cultural norms and practices accumulated over thousands of years and not 'law' at all.

What say you?

sincerely
Robert424

 

[robert424]

No, it is entirely 100% a covenant it's a legal arrangement. A parent/child you can't make them unrelated short of modifying someone at the genetic level in every cell in their body.
A husband and wife, well unless it's incest, aren't closely related on a genetic level, they may exchange DNA, and that'd make their children genetically related to both of them, but that exchange doesn't alter each other's DNA to make them related.

Thank you for the comment.

I counter with:
1 Cor. 6:16-18 says that when a man uses a prostitute, he becomes one with her. Could it be that 'sex makes them one', irrespective to how much DNA gets exchanged? Therefore, I argue that 'Marriage' cannot be '100% covenant'. Relations with a prostitute is a business transaction - no 'covenant' involved.

================

Further Evidence that Marriage is not 100% covenant, but mostly - if not all - 'physical'.

Now for an approach based on the Universal Rules of Logic:

Evidence that You and Your Mother-in-law, are One, Based on the Universal Rules of Logic:

Consider three people: You, Your Son, and Your Mother-in-law.

What is the nature of the relationship between Your Mother-in-law, and your Son?
A: From a genetic point of view: these two are 'one'.
Science tells us that 100% of the Mitochrondria in your son's cells come from the Matriarchal line - from his mothers' mother. Your son could not be alive without the Mitochrondria he received from his Grandmother.
And how long will his Grandmother, be his Grandmother? A: forever.
And under what circumstances will his Grandmother be no longer his Grandmother? A: Under no circumstances. Even if his Grandmother committed a criminal injury on her grandson, she would still be his Grandmother. Even after she dies, she is still his Grandmother.

Now, what is the nature of the relationship between You and your Son?
From a genetic point of view: 100% of your son's Y-chromosomes come from his father. He cannot live and he would not be a boy if it were not for those Y-chromosomes given to him by you - his father.
And how long will his father, be his father? A: forever.
And under what circumstances will his father be no longer his father? A: Under no circunstances. Even if his father committed a criminal injury on his son, that father-son relation would survive. Even after you die, you are still the father of your son.

So, how can we summarize the relationship between your son and his grandmother (your mother-in-law)?
A: Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal - not even ended by death.

So, how can we summarize the relationship between your son and you - his father?
A: Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal - not even ended by death.

Lets say:
1. your mother-in-law - (your son's Grandmother) denoted by the Letter A.
2. . your son is denoted by the Letter B.
3. you are denoted by the letter C.

The relationship between A and B is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal
The relationship between B and C is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal
The two relationships are equal. B can't be alive without A and B can't be alive without C
You are in a 50/50 partnership with your mother-in-law in creating that boy: she contributed her Mitochrondria, and you contributed the Y-chromosomes.

It is a Universal Rule of Logic - underlying all of Logic and Mathematics - that:
If A is equivalent to B, and B is equivalent to C, then, it Logically Follows, that A is equivalent to C.
If A = B, and B = C, then it Logically Follows, that A = C
That is right: If the relationship between your mother-in-law and your son is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal and
the relationship between your son and you is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore, it logically follows that
the relationship between you and your mother-in-law, is also Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal. QED

Everything that can be said of the mother-in-law in this line of argument can also be said of your wife.
You can substitute 'mother-in-law for 'wife'.
This line of argument, therefore, is evidence that the relationship between a child and his mother and between that same child and his father is the same: Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore, it Logically Follows, that the relationship between the father and mother, is also Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal.

(The consequences of parenthood are eternal.)

=====================

So, in summary of both of these arguments:
1. 1 Cor. 6:16-18 says that when a man uses a prostitute, he becomes one with her - and no covenant is ever involved - therefore the 'oneness' of Marriage cannot be 100% covenant.
2. If the relationship between your wife and your son is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal and the relationship between you and your son is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore, it logically follows, that the relationship between you and your wife is also Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore Marriage cannot be 100% covenant, but must be 'physical' - the sharing of the body. Sex makes the marriage. Relationships with 'in-laws' are established by two-couples, 'sharing of the body', through the grand-children - sharing second hand.

I argue that there is no 'covenant'. Marriage as 'covenant' is a modern invention. In the Old Testament, Marriage was a purchase: a cow for a woman - no 'covenant' involved.

Feel free to poke holes in my arguments - that is how we make progress.

sincerely
Robert424

 

[Jamdoc]

Thank you for the comment.

I counter with:
1 Cor. 6:16-18 says that when a man uses a prostitute, he becomes one with her. Could it be that 'sex makes them one', irrespective to how much DNA gets exchanged? Therefore, I argue that 'Marriage' cannot be '100% covenant'. Relations with a prostitute is a business transaction - no 'covenant' involved.

================

Further Evidence that Marriage is not 100% covenant, but mostly - if not all - 'physical'.

Now for an approach based on the Universal Rules of Logic:

Evidence that You and Your Mother-in-law, are One, Based on the Universal Rules of Logic:

Consider three people: You, Your Son, and Your Mother-in-law.

What is the nature of the relationship between Your Mother-in-law, and your Son?
A: From a genetic point of view: these two are 'one'.
Science tells us that 100% of the Mitochrondria in your son's cells come from the Matriarchal line - from his mothers' mother. Your son could not be alive without the Mitochrondria he received from his Grandmother.
And how long will his Grandmother, be his Grandmother? A: forever.
And under what circumstances will his Grandmother be no longer his Grandmother? A: Under no circumstances. Even if his Grandmother committed a criminal injury on her grandson, she would still be his Grandmother. Even after she dies, she is still his Grandmother.

Now, what is the nature of the relationship between You and your Son?
From a genetic point of view: 100% of your son's Y-chromosomes come from his father. He cannot live and he would not be a boy if it were not for those Y-chromosomes given to him by you - his father.
And how long will his father, be his father? A: forever.
And under what circumstances will his father be no longer his father? A: Under no circunstances. Even if his father committed a criminal injury on his son, that father-son relation would survive. Even after you die, you are still the father of your son.

So, how can we summarize the relationship between your son and his grandmother (your mother-in-law)?
A: Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal - not even ended by death.

So, how can we summarize the relationship between your son and you - his father?
A: Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal - not even ended by death.

Lets say:
1. your mother-in-law - (your son's Grandmother) denoted by the Letter A.
2. . your son is denoted by the Letter B.
3. you are denoted by the letter C.

The relationship between A and B is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal
The relationship between B and C is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal
The two relationships are equal. B can't be alive without A and B can't be alive without C
You are in a 50/50 partnership with your mother-in-law in creating that boy: she contributed her Mitochrondria, and you contributed the Y-chromosomes.

It is a Universal Rule of Logic - underlying all of Logic and Mathematics - that:
If A is equivalent to B, and B is equivalent to C, then, it Logically Follows, that A is equivalent to C.
If A = B, and B = C, then it Logically Follows, that A = C
That is right: If the relationship between your mother-in-law and your son is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal and
the relationship between your son and you is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore, it logically follows that
the relationship between you and your mother-in-law, is also Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal. QED

Everything that can be said of the mother-in-law in this line of argument can also be said of your wife.
You can substitute 'mother-in-law for 'wife'.
This line of argument, therefore, is evidence that the relationship between a child and his mother and between that same child and his father is the same: Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore, it Logically Follows, that the relationship between the father and mother, is also Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal.

(The consequences of parenthood are eternal.)

=====================

So, in summary of both of these arguments:
1. 1 Cor. 6:16-18 says that when a man uses a prostitute, he becomes one with her - and no covenant is ever involved - therefore the 'oneness' of Marriage cannot be 100% covenant.
2. If the relationship between your wife and your son is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal and the relationship between you and your son is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore, it logically follows, that the relationship between you and your wife is also Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore Marriage cannot be 100% covenant, but must be 'physical' - the sharing of the body. Sex makes the marriage. Relationships with 'in-laws' are established by two-couples, 'sharing of the body', through the grand-children - sharing second hand.

I argue that there is no 'covenant'. Marriage as 'covenant' is a modern invention. In the Old Testament, Marriage was a purchase: a cow for a woman - no 'covenant' involved.

Feel free to poke holes in my arguments - that is how we make progress.

sincerely
Robert424

as I pointed out prior.
a biological relationship does not end.

a legal relationship, such as marriage, will inevitably end.
When you get to heaven, and the new earth, your mother will still be your mother, your father will still be your father, your children will still be your children, your sisters and brothers will still be your siblings

But your wife won't be your wife. She won't be anyone's wife. Nor will you be anyone's husband.

and regarding salvation and forgiveness, first you have to repent to be forgiven.
God doesn't forgive an unrepentant sinner.
Sure, if someone sins against you 7 times in a day and each time they come to you and say "I repent" you're to forgive them
but a person who sins, and hardens their heart, doubles down and does not even see what they're doing as wrong? We may ask God to forgive them, but if they don't repent they have their part in the Lake of Fire.

 

[robert424]

Yes, I agree that everything you have written is the 'standard' position on this issue - generally accepted by almost all Protestants and I'm pretty sure, almost all Catholics too. But I have some reservations - enlighten me if I'm wrong. How do you know that a covenant exists? Where is this covenant in the Bible? I am very suspicious that it is all made-up cultural mumbo-jumbo.

For example:

Jacobus, melancthon Williams; Zenos, Andrew Constantinides; Nourse, Edward Everett; et al. A Standard Bible Dictionary. London and New York: Funk & Wignalls, 1909.

A standard Bible dictionary ; designed as a comprehensive guide to the scriptures, embracing their languages, literature, history, biography, manners and customs, and their theology : Jacobus, Melancthon Williams, 1855-1937 : Free Download, Borrow, a

Electronic reproduction

archive.org

p.520 Section 1: The Legal Character of Marriage in the O.T. Betrothal
In the O.T. marriage belongs within the sphere of individual law, that is, it took place through a commercial contract which was concluded between the man who wished to marry and the man who had control over the woman who was sought in marriage. It concerned to a certain degree also the family or the local community, but the larger public, the people or the state, had no interest in the marriages of individual Israelites. The legal character of marriage is nowhere specifically described in the O.T., but presupposed as understood."

"... the married woman is spoken of as beʻūlath baʻal (Deut. 22:22; Gen. 20:3; cf. Deut. 24:1; Is 54:1; Prov. 30:23); i.e., as 'acquired by a husband,' 'taken into possession.' "


So, as I understand it, Old Testament Marriage was: 'Hey, mister, I'll give you a cow for your daughter." And the man with the daughter would say 'deal', and the sale would be concluded by a handshake and an exchange - end of the deal, because the deal was concluded. Where is the 'covenant' in that? There was no contract spelling out what the buyer could or could not do, nor any punishments for bad behaviour.

Jacobus et al. (1909) says that the legal character of marriage is nowhere spelled out in the Old Testament.

True, today, we have the Wedding Vows, but that was mandated by Archbishop Cranmer's 'Book of Common Prayer' (1549), so that Vow is a modern invention. And even in that vow, no penalties are specified for bad behaviour, so it is hardly law. Before 1549, I read - somewhere - that the bride and groom merely stopped on the front platform of the Church, and she said to him, 'This day, all my worldly good, I thee endow', and it was a cultural understanding that he was in charge of managing all her financial affairs in her best interest, and he could take a management fee for his efforts. Then they went inside to celebrate Mass. And that was it! Where is the Marriage Vow/Covenant in that?

Throughout the middle ages the Church Courts made up rules, such as that 'when the bride accepted the man's proposal, she had to frame her response in the presence tense, and not in the future, for the acceptance of the 'Proposal' to be legally valid. For example, she couldn't say, 'I would marry you', or I 'might' marry your'. She had to say, 'I do marry you', and that is the form spelled out in the 'Book of Common Prayer', and the form the Pastor has to use today. These 'made-up' rules were created by Judges to solve legal problems - because there were - apparently - quite a few court cases where multiple young men all claimed that the girl agreed to marry them - she being rich, and they wanted to manage her fortune and collect large management fees. So, the Wedding Vow we have today, is made up by Judges, not by Parliament, nor by God.

The only thing that I can imagine where this idea of 'marriage as a covenant', comes from is the 'allegorical covenant between God and his Church', or worse, God's covenant with Abraham. If that is where it comes from, then all I have to say, is:

Deut. 31:8 "It is the Lord who goes before you. He will be with your; he will not leave your or forsake you."

And here is a webpage advertised as having 100 Bible Verses where God repeats this promise.

What Does the Bible Say About God Will Never Leave You Or Forsake You?

Bible verses about God Will Never Leave You Or Forsake You

www.openbible.info

Imagine that. God said that 100 times in the Bible.

The overall theme of the Bible is forgiveness and reconciliation of God with his people, as outlined in the 'Plan of Salvation'. That is what the whole Bible is all about.

The Doctrine of Divorce is the opposite of the 'Plan of Salvation'. In fact, Divorce eviscerates, and guts, and destroys the Plan of Salvation. So, as I see it - according to my present understanding - Christians have to choose: we can either have Divorce, or we can have the 'Plan of Salvation', we can't have both.

So, in conclusion, if God says 100 times in the Bible, that he will never leave us, and those who advocate for Divorce claim - what - One or Two verses, at most, to support their cause? So where is their other 98 verses to support Divorce? And where, in the Bible, is this 'covenant' of Marriage, of which you speak? I am suspicious that this 'Marriage Covenant', is just made-up cultural norms and practices accumulated over thousands of years and not 'law' at all.

What say you?

sincerely
Robert424

No, it is entirely 100% a covenant it's a legal arrangement

Nature of a Covenant in the Bible​

Theologians often confuse a Covenant with a Contract.


Sewell&Kettle lawyers website says: "A covenant in contract law refers to a promise made by one party"

On the same site: "Contract (or agreement) in the context of contract law, refers to a meeting of the minds of two or more parties and at which point a contract is formed."

[Covenant (in the context of contracts) - Law Dictionary]


Theologians often argue that 'Marriage' is a legal contract, but then they quote bible verses about a 'covenant' thus:


1. Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?


Is this 'covenant' an example of an agreement between two people - the father and his descendants? No. this 'covenant' is merely a sworn oath by the father. The descendants had no say.


2. Malachi 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet [is] she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.


The Theologians think this is an example of a marriage 'contract' - an agreement between husband and wife, but this pure presumption. Nowhere in the Bible does it describe nor prescribe a 'marriage contract'. This verse can also be interpreted as a one-sided oath or a promise by the man - the woman merely being the object of the promise.


A 'legal contract' can only be made between 'legal persons', and the idea that a woman is a 'legal person' is a modern invention. In Canada "Women were declared "persons' on October 18, 1929." [Persons Day - Canada.ca]


Before that date - and even today in most parts of the world - women are 'chattel' [a personal possession of a man]. Even today, children are, legally, considered 'chattel'. Before 1929, you couldn't make a legal contract with a woman, so how can theologians claim that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman? Such an argument is patently false.


The word 'covenant', according to the law, is a one-sided pledge or promise, not a two-sided agreement between two 'legal persons'.


Additionally, let us look at the word 'espoused', which occurs 5x in the bible [Genesis 1:1 (KJV)]


2 Sam. 3:14 "Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines."


In this case, it is Kind David who is doing the 'espousing'. It is not a two-sided agreement between David and Michal. Sure, maybe her father, King Saul, may have consulted her, or asked her opinion, but in the final analysis, the woman had no authority - she was not a legal person - she was chattel. David traded 100 foreskins in exchange for Michal - a business deal - a sale of chattel.


Even today, among the Roma of Romania and Bulgaria, that community have an annual 'Bride sale', where they auction off their virgin daughters in marriage and even the Roma women refer to it as 'Selling their daughters'. 'Marriage Market' is another name for it. [Young Brides for Sale

(accessed: 9 Mar. 2025] [Young Virgins For Sale in a Bride Market in Bulgaria

(accessed: 9 Mar. 2025)]


So, in summary, the idea that Marriage is a Contract between a man and a woman [and consequently, if one party breaks the contract, then the other is free to remarry] is a modern invention. There is no 'contract' in the modern sense of the word. In the Bible, when it refers to a Covenant between God and someone or something else, we need to consider that this is an oath from an All Powerful God, and a powerless human with no authority and no power and maybe, not even a 'legal person'. Therefore it should be though of, as more of an one-sided Oath or Promise by God. In these cases, it is God who is making known his plans - his demands - and humans must comply - we really don't have a choice if we want to live. We either comply or die - what kind of 'contract' is that? It is better thought of as a one-sided promise or oath by God.


In like manner, consider the relationship between Master and Slave. Can a Master make a legal contract with a Slave? No, because the Slave has no legal personhood and no power, so it is misleading to call it a 'legal contract'. It is more accurate to think of it as the Master making a one-sided Promise or an Oath, for the benefit of the Slave.


It is for good reason why some translators substitute 'promise' instead of 'covenant' in their translations of the Bible.



robert424

 

[robert424]

as I pointed out prior.
a biological relationship does not end.

a legal relationship, such as marriage, will inevitably end.
When you get to heaven, and the new earth, your mother will still be your mother, your father will still be your father, your children will still be your children, your sisters and brothers will still be your siblings

But your wife won't be your wife. She won't be anyone's wife. Nor will you be anyone's husband.

and regarding salvation and forgiveness, first you have to repent to be forgiven.
God doesn't forgive an unrepentant sinner.
Sure, if someone sins against you 7 times in a day and each time they come to you and say "I repent" you're to forgive them
but a person who sins, and hardens their heart, doubles down and does not even see what they're doing as wrong? We may ask God to forgive them, but if they don't repent they have their part in the Lake of Fire.

a biological relationship does not end. a legal relationship, such as marriage, will inevitably end. ... your wife won't be your wife. She won't be anyone's wife. Nor will you be anyone's husband.

No Marriage After the Resurrection?​

Thank your for your assertions.

I believe these assertions above are based on: Matthew 22:28-30; Mark 12:23-25 and Luke 20:33-35.

But first let us establish three facts about angels:

1.

Zec. 5:9 "Then lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork; and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven."

Here two angels are specifically identified as "women" - females.

2.

Gen. 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

The 'sons of God' are commonly believed to be 'angels', and in this case, 'fallen angels. So, we can conclude that this verse is talking about male angels who are capable of fathering children.

3. (speculative)

The two sisters Isis and Nephthys, (Egyptian Goddesses) are often depicted with wings - but only two, whereas Angels have six wings. It is reasonable to conclude that these sisters are half-breeds of a male fallen angel and a human mother, since the children of mixed species animals often have mixed characteristics of both parent species.

Section Conclusion​

So, we can conclude then, that angels have gender: both male and female, and that they are capable of sexual reproduction, but they choose to remain single - unmarried - so they can better serve their God.

Main Arguments​

Now, on to your three Bible texts: (All three are Christ's answer to the problem of a woman with seven husbands and whose wife will she be in heaven)

1. Matthew 22:30 "... in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

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

3. Luke 20:34, 35 "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Historically speaking, the phrase 'given in marriage' only applies to women - females - and the term 'married' only applied to men. Only a man was 'married', and only a woman was 'given in marriage', but modern feminism demands the same labels of men to prove themselves equal to a man, but historically, the two phrases only applied to one gender. So this is a further piece of evidence that those who are resurrected from the dead retain their male and female qualities - just like the angels. So, both human and angels are male and female and are capable of reproduction in heaven.

In response to your quotes above, I argue the following:​

1. In these three verses, the phrases 'married', and 'given in marriage' are verbal phrases. They are about the 'act' of marriage, or 'entering into marriage', not about the 'state of being married'. It is not saying that those who are married on earth before the second coming of Christ, are no longer married once they get to heaven. It is saying there will be no NEW marriages in heaven.

For the text that applies to males ('neither married'); that could apply to either 'the act of getting married' or the 'state of being married', but the text which apply to females, 'nor given in marriage', if this phrase were talking about the 'state of being married', we would expect the phrase to say ' ... nor any longer given in marriage', or something to that effect. The phrase 'nor given in marriage' is definitely not talking about the 'state of being married'. It means 'no future marriages for women'.

2. The jump from 'virgin' to 'fornicator' is a one way street. Once taken, it is impossible for a 'fornicator' to return to being a 'virgin'. If you accept that 'sex is marriage', then if a person loses their virginity on earth, they can't regain their virginity in the resurrection - once despoiled, always despoiled - there is no going back. If 'sex is marriage', then it is impossible to ever become 'unmarried' after they give up their virginity.

3. You admit that 'biological relationships do not end'. So, I argue, that marriage (i. e. sex) is biological. If you eat a carrot, the DNA in that carrot is broken down into short chains, and it is recycled by being incorporated into your DNA. In the same way, anything foreign injected into your veins (RNA based vaccines, for example) is attacked by white blood cells and recycled and incorporated into your body - including DNA.

I speculate (without proof) that after a husband's sperm in his wife's body dies, it is attacked by white blood cells, digested and the DNA, etc. incorporated into the wife's body. So the husband's DNA becomes incorporated into his wife's body. And this would explain the fact that a couple who have lived as husband and wife for five decades begin to look alike (like brother and sister, XD). And if you do not accept this third speculation, then I raise the issue of a oral sodomist wife who swallows (if you know what I mean. lol.) - same effect as eating a carrot. Therefore, marriage (i. e. sex) is biological in nature (exchanging DNA), and therefore, marriage is an indissoluble bond. When God says they "become one", He means it - literally.

Section Summary​

So, in summary of the above three arguments, those previously married, will still be married in heaven and they will live together in celibate joy for an eternity. Marriage is indissoluble and eternal.

sincerely
robert424

By the way, I claim that a celibate marriage is still a marriage, in fact, for every couple, when they get old enough, they all eventually enter into a celibate marriage - blissful or otherwise - they all just lose interest eventually.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm curious, is there a non-canonical story of Adam cheating on Eve? The Exception kind of ruins the harmony of what is being said. (in the beginning it was not so)

 

[Jamdoc]

No Marriage After the Resurrection?​

Thank your for your assertions.

I believe these assertions above are based on: Matthew 22:28-30; Mark 12:23-25 and Luke 20:33-35.

But first let us establish three facts about angels:

1.

Zec. 5:9 "Then lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork; and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven."

Here two angels are specifically identified as "women" - females.

2.

Gen. 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

The 'sons of God' are commonly believed to be 'angels', and in this case, 'fallen angels. So, we can conclude that this verse is talking about male angels who are capable of fathering children.

3. (speculative)

The two sisters Isis and Nephthys, (Egyptian Goddesses) are often depicted with wings - but only two, whereas Angels have six wings. It is reasonable to conclude that these sisters are half-breeds of a male fallen angel and a human mother, since the children of mixed species animals often have mixed characteristics of both parent species.

Section Conclusion​

So, we can conclude then, that angels have gender: both male and female, and that they are capable of sexual reproduction, but they choose to remain single - unmarried - so they can better serve their God.

Main Arguments​

Now, on to your three Bible texts: (All three are Christ's answer to the problem of a woman with seven husbands and whose wife will she be in heaven)

1. Matthew 22:30 "... in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

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

3. Luke 20:34, 35 "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Historically speaking, the phrase 'given in marriage' only applies to women - females - and the term 'married' only applied to men. Only a man was 'married', and only a woman was 'given in marriage', but modern feminism demands the same labels of men to prove themselves equal to a man, but historically, the two phrases only applied to one gender. So this is a further piece of evidence that those who are resurrected from the dead retain their male and female qualities - just like the angels. So, both human and angels are male and female and are capable of reproduction in heaven.

In response to your quotes above, I argue the following:​

1. In these three verses, the phrases 'married', and 'given in marriage' are verbal phrases. They are about the 'act' of marriage, or 'entering into marriage', not about the 'state of being married'. It is not saying that those who are married on earth before the second coming of Christ, are no longer married once they get to heaven. It is saying there will be no NEW marriages in heaven.

For the text that applies to males ('neither married'); that could apply to either 'the act of getting married' or the 'state of being married', but the text which apply to females, 'nor given in marriage', if this phrase were talking about the 'state of being married', we would expect the phrase to say ' ... nor any longer given in marriage', or something to that effect. The phrase 'nor given in marriage' is definitely not talking about the 'state of being married'. It means 'no future marriages for women'.

2. The jump from 'virgin' to 'fornicator' is a one way street. Once taken, it is impossible for a 'fornicator' to return to being a 'virgin'. If you accept that 'sex is marriage', then if a person loses their virginity on earth, they can't regain their virginity in the resurrection - once despoiled, always despoiled - there is no going back. If 'sex is marriage', then it is impossible to ever become 'unmarried' after they give up their virginity.

3. You admit that 'biological relationships do not end'. So, I argue, that marriage (i. e. sex) is biological. If you eat a carrot, the DNA in that carrot is broken down into short chains, and it is recycled by being incorporated into your DNA. In the same way, anything foreign injected into your veins (RNA based vaccines, for example) is attacked by white blood cells and recycled and incorporated into your body - including DNA.

I speculate (without proof) that after a husband's sperm in his wife's body dies, it is attacked by white blood cells, digested and the DNA, etc. incorporated into the wife's body. So the husband's DNA becomes incorporated into his wife's body. And this would explain the fact that a couple who have lived as husband and wife for five decades begin to look alike (like brother and sister, XD). And if you do not accept this third speculation, then I raise the issue of a oral sodomist wife who swallows (if you know what I mean. lol.) - same effect as eating a carrot. Therefore, marriage (i. e. sex) is biological in nature (exchanging DNA), and therefore, marriage is an indissoluble bond. When God says they "become one", He means it - literally.

Section Summary​

So, in summary of the above three arguments, those previously married, will still be married in heaven and they will live together in celibate joy for an eternity. Marriage is indissoluble and eternal.

sincerely
robert424

By the way, I claim that a celibate marriage is still a marriage, in fact, for every couple, when they get old enough, they all eventually enter into a celibate marriage - blissful or otherwise - they all just lose interest eventually.

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.