Is there such a thing as "Christian divorce?"

[HuntingMan]

No, that verse says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says, which was my point. Jesus was sent specifically to the house of Israel and no one else.

It does say exactly what it means...but YOU proved MY point that it HAS to be explained further so we understand how the GENTILES were brought in OTHERWISE it can be MISunderstood to possibly mean that Christ DIDNT come to save gentiles....and that Christ said that He had OTHER sheep not of that fold that He would draw also.

There are doctrines out there that literally teach that Christ DIDNT come for the Gentiles at all and that only because of Paul can the gentiles be saved...which is a complete distortoin of Christs words since BY His coming and being rejected the INTENT was TO bring salvation TO the gentiles.
His statement is true, but its only intent is that His IMMEDIATE MINISTRY during His lifetime was aimed solely at the lost of Israel.
And again...here I am EXPLAINING the intent because the verse ALONE leaves much to the imagination without knowing the INTENT.
Its EXACTLY the same for your game with your pet passages.

please dont play the retraction game here David....YOU felt to EXPLAIN the meaning of the verse, as I knew you would if you responded to it.
And THAT is precisly the point...MANY scriptures ARE true as written but CAN be misinterpreted or in your case, outright misrepresented, when compared to the whole

You on the other hand want to convince us that "everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery" (Luke 16:18) actually means that no one who divorces and remarries commits adultery, but this verse, like Mat. 15:24, in fact means exactly what it says and says exactly what it means.

SealedEternal

That would be because OTHER words of Christ show EXCEPTION...ie your pet passage there ISNT the whole story either
This little game you & keepingfaith play at crosswalk wont work here, Im afraid. We have Kryptonite to weaken your superpowers here...its called 'bible study'

Mat 5:32 But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery*. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery.

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.

another round ?
I have plenty of time this evening, as usual

 

[HuntingMan]

SealedEternal

Also, I see that you didnt respond to the other post (obviously you and I have covered this particular item previously, so Ill understand if you dont want to dig up any bones here ) So here it is again for your reading/responding pleasure.


Tell us how these passages harmonize WITHOUT further explaination, David.
One says NO SIGN will be given (when they came seeking a 'sign from heaven' ...yes I remember your dodge last time )
The other says NO SIGN BUT the sign of Jonah....
So tell us who is the liar there, if you would ...Mark who says NO SIGN or Matthew who says NO SIGN BUT...
*IF* unequivocal things are as you claim, then one of these two men were lying...


(READERS, a note for you...the word 'but' in 'no sign but the sign of Jonah' is actually the same word as 'except' in Jesus exception in Matthew 19:9. Not that thats a huge point, but it is interesting nonetheless since this is yet another 'exception' shown by Matthew that Mark omits.)

I wanted to show a point here about context and harmony and taking one passage TOO literally while rejecting others that should be worked TOGETHER with the rest.

Scripture says what it says and means what it means, correct?
We take each passage as absolutely as it is stated by what some seem to present. Some seem to believe that scriptures cannot be modified by other, similar scriptures and we ALL seem to have the problem of pushing our pet passages as absolute while rejecting anything that doesnt agree with our views.

Here is something that is stated VERY clearly in Mark and why we can NEVER just look at ONE passage and believe that it presents any absolutes without consulting the spirit of the WHOLE of Gods word.
This is expressed as an absolute here in Mark;

Mar 8:11-13 KJV And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. (12) And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. (13) And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.

See there ?
An ABSOLUTE statement given and by Jesus Christ Himself.
If I wanted to pull a legalist stunt here with this verse I could keep going on about how CLEAR it is, how direct and how unyeilding it is presented.
It is stated AS an absolute fact, no questions asked. ...NO sign shall be given to this generation.
Now, do you believe it because Jesus SAID it or not, dear reader ?
Decide now before we go on whether you take HIm at HIS word or not.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
and now let us continue with related scriptures elsewhere in the NT.

The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 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.
(Mat 16:1-4 KJV)

See that ?...the REST of the story.
The statement in Mark was given as an ABSOLUTE....no exceptions, no excuses, absolutely absolute.
..but then we come to OTHER details in the NT...other writers....who give us MORE detail in the matter and make us realize that what is said in Mark IS true...but it ISNT the entire picture.


When you hear someone giving you a verse or two....someone pushing ONE side of a story on you and showing you the scriptures THEY want to have you believe, ALWAYs be a noble minded Berean and check the REST of Gods word in the matter.

Lets say you didnt know the scriptures and someone was pushing the Mark passage on you....you would literally believe that NO sign was to be given based on that narrow set of details, wouldnt you ?

This MDR thing is precisely the same.
Some here want you to accept THEIR pet passages as absolute without harmonizing ALL of the facts from the whole of Gods word in the matter.
They want you to see 'except for fornication' and 'God hates divorce' and base what you believe on THAT limited information instead of looking at the spirit of the WHOLE word of God.

Whatever Marks reasons for leaving out this sign of Jonah were, we know factually that Christ DID make the statement.
This is why we need all four gospels. It doesnt matter 'why' Mark didnt record the words, we KNOW that when Christ spoke about no sign being given that He DID say that the sign of Jonah would be given, even if Marks account seems to directly conflict with Matthews by not presenting it.

 

[SealedEternal]

It does say exactly what it means...but YOU proved MY point that it HAS to be explained further so we understand how the GENTILES were brought in OTHERWISE it can be MISunderstood to possibly mean that Christ DIDNT come to save gentiles....and that Christ said that He had OTHER sheep not of that fold that He would draw also.

No, I explained it because you were trying to imply that it didn't mean exactly what it said, when in fact it did. The verse itself doesn't require me to write hundreds of words to explain that Christ was sent to the Israelites, because that is a fact of history as recorded in scripture.

The same way, all of the verses I posted mean exactly what they say such as "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate", "the husband should not divorce his wife", "A wife is bound as long as her husband lives", "the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband", "if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress", "whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her", "if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery", "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery", etc, etc, etc.

There are doctrines out there that literally teach that Christ DIDNT come for the Gentiles at all and that only because of Paul can the gentiles be saved...which is a complete distortoin of Christs words since BY His coming and being rejected the INTENT was TO bring salvation TO the gentiles.

People believe a lot of false doctrines, but that isn't what this verse says.

His statement is true, but its only intent is that His IMMEDIATE MINISTRY during His lifetime was aimed solely at the lost of Israel.
And again...here I am EXPLAINING the intent because the verse ALONE leaves much to the imagination without knowing the INTENT.
Its EXACTLY the same for your game with your pet passages.

The difference is that you are denying all of the verses I posted and writing long articles to explain away what the text says, which is an open denial of the "intent" of the verses rather than an explanation of it. You teach that "THE TWO SHALL NOT BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are still two, and not one flesh. What therefore God has joined together man may feel free to separate", "the husband should not hesitate to divorce his wife", "A wife is not bound as long as her husband lives", "the wife should leave her husband (and if she does leave, she need not remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband", "if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall not be called an adulteress", "whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman does not commit adultery against her", "if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is not committing adultery", "whoever marries a divorced woman does not commit adultery", etc, etc, etc.

SealedEternal

 

[HuntingMan]

No, I explained it because you were trying to imply that it didn't mean exactly what it said, when in fact it did. The verse itself doesn't require me to write hundreds of words to explain that Christ was sent to the Israelites, because that is a fact of history as recorded in scripture.

Then WITHOUT adding a single word to the verse, you KNOW you cannot EXPLAIN what Christs INTENT was leaving the verse itself to make an impression NOT meant by Christ.
You betray yourself again with your words 'this is a fact as recorded in scripture' thereby PROVING AGAIN that OTHER data MUST be accounted for to UNDERSTAND that Christ ISNT saying that the gentiles are omitted from His covenant.

The same way, all of the verses I posted mean exactly what they say such as

...in the SAME way ONE verse CAN be MISunderstood until taken along with OTHER evidence such as the "history as recorded in scripture" as you call it.

People believe a lot of false doctrines, but that isn't what this verse says.

Taken by ITSELF that is EXACTLY what the verse states...that Christ was ONLY sent for the sheep of Israel....you only reject the fact because you KNOW the REST of the data.
*IF* you just opened the bible up to that verse and knew NOTHING else please dont pretend that Im ignorant enough to think that you would immediately UNDERSTAND the intent ....Im not
The verse ALONE gives a very wrong impression...we BOTH know it so lets stop playing this game that it doesnt.

The difference is that you are denying all of the verses I posted and writing long articles to explain away what the text says, which is an open denial of the "intent" of the verses rather than an explanation of it.

Just as I do with other doctrines that, by the way, are FAR more convincing than yours, such as Hypercalvinism which says GOD is to blame for mans sin...they have FAR more evidence than you will ever have and there is VERY little in Gods word to directly refute the view the way they present it.

Like Hypercalvinism your fallacy focuses on your pet passages and handwaves away anything that gets in the way....well, some of it you twist and mangle such as the intent of Deut 24:1-4...but you get the point.

Like the hypercalvinist you demand adherence to the supposed 'commandments' that YOU claim are absolute but YOU reject OTHER clear commandment when it affects YOUR life, dont you, David

What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together
"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
"Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin



another round ?

 

[HuntingMan]

SealedEternal

I also thought you might get a kick out of another error of yours Ive refuted that Ive seen you passing around the web....


Deuteronomy 20:7 agrees that betrothal is 'marriage'

And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
(Deu 20:7 KJV)

And whatH4310 manH376 is there thatH834 hath betrothedH781 a wife,H802 and hath notH3808 takenH3947 her? let him goH1980 and returnH7725 unto his house,H1004 lestH6435 he dieH4191 in the battle,H4421 and anotherH312 manH376 takeH3947 her.
(Deu 20:7 KJV+)

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
Some use this verse to try to claim that ancient Hebrew betrothal was not a binding marriage covenant. Some versions use the 'married' instead of 'taken' there in the verse making it SEEM as though the man and woman arent actually married and deceptively make it seem like they are only 'engaged' as most of us today understand engagement.
Ancient Hebrew betrothal was nothing like our engagements, but was a lawfully and religiously binding covenant/contract of marriage.

Supporting evidence
The word in the verse above simply means 'to take'.

H3947
לקח
lâqach
law-kakh'
A primitive root; to take (in the widest variety of applications): - accept, bring, buy, carry away, drawn, fetch, get, infold, X many, mingle, place, receive (-ing), reserve, seize, send for, take (away, -ing, up), use, win.

In Hebrew culture at that time it was customary to enter a marriage contract/covenant, then the betrothed virgin wife had one year until the husband would 'take' his wife into his home ("hometaking").

Thus the KJV and any translations that use 'take' or similar in Deut 20:7 are presenting what the actual word means and is in very clear agreement with the Hebrew custom that the wife had a year and then her husband would 'take' her from her father and into his home.
Translations such as the NASB which render the word 'marry' instead are quite misleading since the word does not actually MEAN 'to marry' or 'matrimony'.

When we understand how Hebrew betrothal worked at that time then we see that that Deut 20:7 and its ACTUAL wording very much agree with the rest of scripture that betrothal then WAS a lawfully binding marriage lacking in hometaking and consummation.

.

 

[SealedEternal]

That's exactly what I always claimed.

SealedEternal

 

[HuntingMan]

Tell us, David....WILL YOU OBEY 'unequivocal' commandment of Jesus Christ here that no exception is given for ?
If I ask you for $750...do you OBEY the Lord or do you find some loophole to get out of it ?

I know you like the 'every/everyone' argument, so this should be simple enough

Give to EVERY man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
(Luk 6:30 KJV)

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
(Mat 5:42 KJV)

Do you TRUST and OBEY the Lord you claim to love or do you ignore any CLEAR commandment when it inconveniences you ?
READERS...WILL SE OBEY the clear commandment or will he excuse himself from doing so

 

[HuntingMan]

That's exactly what I always claimed.

SealedEternal

To bad I cant bring quotes over here or we'd see something different
We BOTH know youve used that passage to show that betrothal ISNT marriage but that the "marriage" is when the man takes her from her fathers home. Hebrew betrothal then WAS quite binding AS a lawful marriage...something you USED to preach and believe when I first started debating with you

 

[SealedEternal]

To bad I cant bring quotes over here or we'd see something different
We BOTH know youve used that passage to show that betrothal ISNT marriage but that the "marriage" is when the man takes her from her fathers home. Hebrew betrothal then WAS quite binding AS a lawful marriage...something you USED to preach and believe when I first started debating with you

What I always said was that in Old Testament marriages there was always two parts. First the covenant was made, and later the two became one flesh and lived together. What you're arguing over is terminology which is irrelevent.

The Bible says that once the betrothal covenant was made they are husband and wife and must adhere to the covenant, but it also said that they weren't married or joined as a union until he took her or married her. You can change the terminology if you wish, but what you're saying is the same thing I have always contended.

SealedEternal

 

[HuntingMan]

What I always said was that in Old Testament marriages there was always two parts. First the covenant was made, and later the two became one flesh and lived together. What you're arguing over is terminology which is irrelevent.

The Bible says that once the betrothal covenant was made they are husband and wife and must adhere to the covenant, but it also said that they weren't married or joined as a union until he took her or married her.


You can change the terminology if you wish, but what you're saying is the same thing I have always contended.

SealedEternal

I'll EXPECT scriptural PROOF of the assertion that Ive bolded in your next post, SE..you made the assertion, so we want to see your evidence to support it
Everything shows that that they ARE under a binding marriage covenant AT betrothal. The custom merely allowed for the virgin to have a year at home before hometaking...it DIDNT nullify the covenant/contract of marriage she entered into with her husband, Im afraid.

The 'terminology' as you call it shows conclusively that they were husband and wife AT betrothal and that it was quite binding.
Your game simply makes it only SORT of binding instead of what it was...deadly serious as proven by Deut 22:13-21

They must adhere to the covenant of marriage but arent actually married....thats really rich, David

A wife is a lawful wife even during the betrothal year and punishable as such
By WmTipton

A woman was the covenant wife of her husband during the whole betrothal year.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. (Deu 22:23-24 KJV)

This 'betrothed' woman IS this neighbors WIFE as proven by clear scripture (a mans 'woman' is his 'wife' except where proven otherwise by the texts). So Jesus isn't referring to premarital sex, the two were married lawfully. Jesus said “wife'' in His exception clause, as well He would since lawful marriage WAS the topic at hand in Matthew 19. A wife was a "wife" lawfully as soon as she was betrothed/contracted in marriage. Jesus was not only referring to premarital sex in Matt 19 as some assert, because in the custom Jesus lived in "betrothed" was not a Premarital state, it was unconsummated marriage. It was Lawful, binding, permanent marriage as proven by Joseph and Marys case. Joe was her lawful husband and therefore the earthly father of Jesus, just as he is called in scripture.

There is no distinction made between ''espoused wife'' and ''wife'' as far as the punishment for willful sexual sin in the OT. When Jesus says ''except for whoredom”, He shows that to divorce frivolously for the purpose of marrying another is an act of adultery. What has changed, though is mercy to the sinner. By not issuing the death of the woman found in adultery, Jesus has shown that the adulteress isn't to be put to death because of mercy's sake.

An interesting point is that if a woman isn't the lawful ‘’wife’’ of her husband during the betrothal year, that would mean that Jesus would have been illegitimate having not been born with both a father and mother who were lawfully married. If Mary wasnt Josephs lawful ''wife'' when Jesus was born that would make Him illegitimate. *IF* Mary wasn’t Josephs lawful WIFE, the Jews would have made Jesus and Marys life hell over it....Jesus being a ''messiah'' and born to a woman who was not ''married'' lawfully. Knowing anything about the Pharisees at all shows us that they would have been pointing this out first and foremost if Jesus was born out of wedlock.
Mary would have been put to trial as well if she wasn’t Joseph's LAWFUL COVENANT WIFE and was with child..especially this particular child who drew attention to her whole family. We might think a woman could go unnoticed in this matter normally, but certainly the popularity of her Son would have drawn the Pharisees attention to her ''unmarried with child'' status.
Mary was Joseph's LAWFUL wife. That is scriptural and cultural fact.

 

[HuntingMan]

And now...if you would, David...

Tell us, David....WILL YOU OBEY 'unequivocal' commandment of Jesus Christ here that no exception is given for ?
If I ask you for $750...do you OBEY the Lord or do you find some loophole to get out of it ?

I know you like the 'every/everyone' argument, so this should be simple enough

Give to EVERY man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
(Luk 6:30 KJV)

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
(Mat 5:42 KJV)

Do you TRUST and OBEY the Lord you claim to love or do you ignore any CLEAR commandment when it inconveniences you ?
READERS...WILL SE OBEY the clear commandment or will he excuse himself from doing so

 

[HuntingMan]

For you READERS, here is an article about ancient Jewish betrothal to show that it IS a binding marriage covenant simply lacking in hometaking...

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B&search=betrothal

Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.


The root

("to betroth"), from which the Talmudic abstract

("betrothal") is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of the passages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as "wife" (II Sam. iii. 14, "my wife whom I have betrothed" ("erasti"), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as "the wife of his neighbor"). In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.

Of course without hometaking and consummation the marriage was not yet 'completed'...that is just common sense. But it was no less binding AS a covenant of marriage and precisely why a woman who WAS betrothed (ie married) would be put to death for adultery against her husband while an UNbetrothed woman (ie NOT married) would have to marry if she was coerced into having sex with a man.

 

[SealedEternal]

I'll EXPECT scriptural PROOF of the assertion that Ive bolded in your next post, SE..you made the assertion, so we want to see your evidence to support it

Like I said, I don't disagree with what you wrote but it is a matter of terminology. They were husband and wife and bound together at the betrothal, but they weren't yet joined as one flesh. At what point the English word "married" would fit is open to how you define the terms, because we use that term to describe both issues as one event, but in Old Testament marriages they were two separate events.

Everything shows that that they ARE under a binding marriage covenant AT betrothal. The custom merely allowed for the virgin to have a year at home before hometaking...it DIDNT nullify the covenant/contract of marriage she entered into with her husband, Im afraid.

That's what I said.

The 'terminology' as you call it shows conclusively that they were husband and wife AT betrothal and that it was quite binding.
Your game simply makes it only SORT of binding instead of what it was...deadly serious as proven by Deut 22:13-21

Yes I agree and have never said otherwise.

They must adhere to the covenant of marriage but arent actually married....thats really rich, David

You're confused because you're using an English term in which both events were combined, while in Old Testament marriages they were distinct events separated by a year of time. They were husband and wife at the betrothal but they weren't yet joined physically. You can subscribe whatever English terms you want to those events, but we are in agreement as far as the substance of the issue.

SealedEternal

 

[HuntingMan]

Like I said, I don't disagree with what you wrote but it is a matter of terminology. They were husband and wife and bound together at the betrothal, but they weren't yet joined as one flesh.

'One flesh' is consummation, nothing more. it doesnt make the marriage covenant any more or any less binding. That is a twist your doctrine pushes to force your views on others that has no foundation in Gods word.
Eve, the type and shadow of wives to come, was the ONLY woman literally made of her husbands own body.

At what point the English word "married" would fit is open to how you define the terms, because we use that term to describe both issues as one event, but in Old Testament marriages they were two separate events.

No. they were joined in a marriage covenant AT betrothal when that custom came into being.
She WAS his lawful wife the moment the covenant/contract of marriage was set into place. She was merely given a year before the her husband took his wife from her father into his own home.
The custom did not nullify the covenant contract of marriage or the vows they would have made.

Yes I agree and have never said otherwise.

Then Im sure you wont mind if I save this conversation for future reference. I have a bad habit of forgetting things when I need them

You're confused because you're using an English term in which both events were combined, while in Old Testament marriages they were distinct events separated by a year of time.

Im not confused in the least. They were joined in an absolutely BINDING marriage covenant AT betrothal, hence her punishment in Deut 22 for committing adultery againste her husband if she did do so, but the CUSTOM of betrothal gave her a year before hometaking...it didnt nullify the covenant that was already in place.

They were husband and wife at the betrothal but they weren't yet joined physically.

Sex doesnt make a marriage, David, or our Lord was born a bastard child seeing that they had not yet come together physically at His birth
I know your views on that issue as well...so do we go there as well ?

READERS SEE->Click->>> Jesus was not accused of being born of fornication


.

 

[SealedEternal]

My point in bringing up the verse was to show that Deuteronomy 24:1 was referring to the end of the betrothal when the man was taking his wife:

Deuteronomy 20:7 'And who is the man that is betrothed to a woman and has not married (lâqach) her? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would marry (lâqach) her.'

Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house...

When a man "laqach" his wife is a reference to the specific point in time when her husband "took" her as you so elequently explained here. She was bound to him from the moment the betrothal covenant was made, but this verse says that he found her "indecent" or as Jesus said was guilty of "fornication" at the time that he took her which was at the end of the betrothal period. That is when the Old Covenant permitted a type of "divorce".

SealedEternal

 

[HuntingMan]

My point in bringing up the verse was to show that Deuteronomy 24:1 was referring to the end of the betrothal when the man was taking his wife:

Deuteronomy 20:7 'And who is the man that is betrothed to a woman and has not married (lâqach) her? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would marry (lâqach) her.'

oh good grief...THIS is the SAME verse I JUST said YOU claimed was ABOUT marriage as you believe above...do you even READ anyones posts but your own ?

The word is TAKE, David, where your corrupted versions says 'married' there..that ISNT in the text....the word is TAKE....

READERS also see the attached interlinear evidence to show that 'married' is NOT in the text of Deut 20:7.

Deuteronomy 20:7 agrees that betrothal is 'marriage'

And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
(Deu 20:7 KJV)

And whatH4310 manH376 is there thatH834 hath betrothedH781 a wife,H802 and hath notH3808 takenH3947 her? let him goH1980 and returnH7725 unto his house,H1004 lestH6435 he dieH4191 in the battle,H4421 and anotherH312 manH376 takeH3947 her.
(Deu 20:7 KJV+)

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
Some use this verse to try to claim that ancient Hebrew betrothal was not a binding marriage covenant. Some versions use the 'married' instead of 'taken' there in the verse making it SEEM as though the man and woman arent actually married and deceptively make it seem like they are only 'engaged' as most of us today understand engagement.
Ancient Hebrew betrothal was nothing like our engagements, but was a lawfully and religiously binding covenant/contract of marriage.

Supporting evidence
The word in the verse above simply means 'to take'.

H3947
לקח
lâqach
law-kakh'
A primitive root; to take (in the widest variety of applications): - accept, bring, buy, carry away, drawn, fetch, get, infold, X many, mingle, place, receive (-ing), reserve, seize, send for, take (away, -ing, up), use, win.

In Hebrew culture at that time it was customary to enter a marriage contract/covenant, then the betrothed virgin wife had one year until the husband would 'take' his wife into his home ("hometaking").

Thus the KJV and any translations that use 'take' or similar in Deut 20:7 are presenting what the actual word means and is in very clear agreement with the Hebrew custom that the wife had a year and then her husband would 'take' her from her father and into his home.
Translations such as the NASB which render the word 'marry' instead are quite misleading since the word does not actually MEAN 'to marry' or 'matrimony'.

When we understand how Hebrew betrothal worked at that time then we see that that Deut 20:7 and its ACTUAL wording very much agree with the rest of scripture that betrothal then WAS a lawfully binding marriage lacking in hometaking and consummation.

.

 

[HuntingMan]

My point in bringing up the verse was to show that Deuteronomy 24:1 was referring to the end of the betrothal when the man was taking his wife:

Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house...

This doesnt in any way show that the betrothed wife is not bound in marriage.
In fact *IF* your twist on the text WERE actually true then it would PROVE that they WERE married because even just betrothed he would have to give her a LAWFUL DIVORCE in order to end the marriage BEFORE you believe they are actually "married"

I hope you have better than this David....

 

[SealedEternal]

'One flesh' is consummation, nothing more. it doesnt make the marriage covenant any more or any less binding. That is a twist your doctrine pushes to force your views on others that has no foundation in Gods word.

I never said that. One flesh refers to the point where he "lâqach" her, but I have been and have always said that the covenant was binding at the beginning of the betrothal.

Eve, the type and shadow of wives to come, was the ONLY woman literally made of her husbands own body.

True, but all marriages are joined by God into one flesh, and we are told we are not allowed to separate them:

Genesis 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? 6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Mark 10: 6-12 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

Ephesians 5: 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

That's why He repeatedly stated that remarriage is adultery, or in other words a married person entering an extramarital affair.

No. they were joined in a marriage covenant AT betrothal when that custom came into being.
She WAS his lawful wife the moment the covenant/contract of marriage was set into place. She was merely given a year before the her husband took his wife from her father into his own home.
The custom did not nullify the covenant contract of marriage or the vows they would have made.

That's what I've been saying.

Im not confused in the least. They were joined in an absolutely BINDING marriage covenant AT betrothal, hence her punishment in Deut 22 for committing adultery againste her husband if she did do so, but the CUSTOM of betrothal gave her a year before hometaking...it didnt nullify the covenant that was already in place.

Again, that's what I've been saying.

Sex doesnt make a marriage, David, or our Lord was born a bastard child seeing that they had not yet come together physically at His birth
I know your views on that issue as well...so do we go there as well ?

Joseph wasn't His biological father so the whole point is moot. His Father was God, so He couldn't be a "bastard child".

SealedEternal

http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=61

 

[HuntingMan]

I never said that. One flesh refers to the point where he "lâqach" her, but I have been and have always said that the covenant was binding at the beginning of the betrothal.

No, 'one flesh' after the woman Eve means to have sexual relations with. They shall become 'one flesh' simply shows consummation...anything beyond that is YOUR addition, Im afraid.

READERS SEE->Click->>> What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together

True, but all marriages are joined by God into one flesh, and we are told we are not allowed to separate them:

Sorry but that isnt accurate.
Joseph and Mary WERE married but had NOT yet become one flesh until AFTER Christ was born.

And again you are making false claims. PAUL says clearly to 'let the unbeliever depart' and that word is EXACTLY the same as when Jesus says 'let not man separate/put asunder'
So you are purposefully omitting information here that shows that we CAN separate what God has joined and are even instructed to let it be so by Paul...

READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"

That's why He repeatedly stated that remarriage is adultery, or in other words a married person entering an extramarital affair.

Only when one ONLY reads your pet passages.
Christ said EXCEPT for fornication, Im afraid...

That's what I've been saying.

right

Joseph wasn't His biological father so the whole point is moot. His Father was God, so He couldn't be a "bastard child".

Convenient dodge but we are talking about HUMAN marriages here...stop with the dishonest acrobatics....

 

[SealedEternal]

This doesnt in any way show that the betrothed wife is not bound in marriage.

I never said she wasn't.

In fact *IF* your twist on the text WERE actually true then it would PROVE that they WERE married because even just betrothed he would have to give her a LAWFUL DIVORCE in order to end the marriage BEFORE you believe they are actually "married"
[/size] [/size]
I hope you have better than this David....

That's what I said, except you want to use the English word "married" to describe a situation where the woman is betrothed but not yet laqach. I agree with your conclusion but was using the term married to mean joined together as one or betrothed and laqach. The English term assumes that both are simultaneous which makes it confusing to discuss in Old Covenant terms. That's why I keep telling you it's a matter of terminology and not substance. We agree but are using the English term "married" differently because it doesn't adequately explain the two part Old Covenant marriages in which the parts are not simultaneous.

SealedEternal