I'm a lifelong member of the Roman Catholic organization, who was born again in 2005. I do not have the Catholic icon, because it would erroneously say "Faith: Catholic" when you drag your mouse over the icon. I admit that my church is probably the "great harlot" (Rev. 17:1) and the "mother of harlots" (Rev. 17:5). But I don't believe we are supposed to leave our respective "harlots" until the great tribulation. She does not know that she is a harlot. I believe that, for now, we are supposed to rebuke her and to not feed her unless she repents. Since my regeneration, the thing that has surprised me the most about all of Christendom is how we are defining adultery with another man's wife. I want to make sure that I do not deceive my son or my daughter on this.
The Lord says (Luke 16:18b), "whoever marries her that is put away from her husband commits adultery."
But Catholics say, "whoever marries her that is put away from her unbaptized or spiritually immature husband does not commit adultery."
And Protestants say, "whoever marries her that is put away from her unbelieving, unfaithful, or abusive husband does not commit adultery."
I found that both Catholic adjectives underlined above, and 2 of the 3 Protestant adjectives (unbelieving and abusive) come from the idea that, in 1st Cor. 7v15, the Holy Ghost meant for Paul to write "bound" (Greek deo) when he wrote "enslaved" (Greek doulo-o). I have found that this error is rooted in the 12th century Catholic Church. That's long before the Protestant Reformation. So to all of you who are not Catholics, I apologize to you for my church's error. You inherited that from the mother church.
The other Protestant adjective (unfaithful) comes from the idea that, in the Matthew 5:32 / 19:9 exception clause, the Lord meant to say "marital unfaithfulness" (Greek moicheia; Hebrew nawaf) when He said "premarital unfaithfulness" (Greek inappropriate contenteia; Hebrew zanah). That's an error, because the exception clause has to do with putting away a harlot (Greek inappropriate contente), not an adulteress (Greek moichalis). The two scenarios I can think of is: a. the man finds out that his wife got pregnant before the day he started to sleep with her (Mat 1:18-19), or b. the man, in an arranged marriage culture, finds no blood on his wife's wedding cloth (Deu. 22:13-21). The reason why there is no exception clause for the woman putting away her husband (Mark 10:12) is because a man has neither a hymen nor a womb.
Even though the erroneous interpretation of the exception clause (Mat. 5:32 / 19:9) originated in the daughter churches, the mother church is partially to blame because she failed to adequately interpret the clause. To this day, she says it means "except for unlawful marriage" (see Catholic bibles). By unlawful marriage, she means incest, like that of Herod and his brother's wife (Mat. 14:4). Even though incest is a type of inappropriate contenteia (1st Cor. 5:1), that is not what the Lord was referring to. That's because the Lord was referring to a man putting away "his wife" (Mat 5:32 /19:9), not someone else's wife.
If the Lord's definition of adultery with another man's wife is correct, then it means that men have a duty that is not specifically spelled out in scripture. It would be a duty to rebuke a sister's unbelieving husband whenever he leaves her, puts her away, cheats against her, or abuses her. If we have such a sister, then it's cruel to do nothing other than to tell her, "you may not get remarried to another." We must do much more than that. We must rebuke her husband and keep believing that for as long as he is alive, it's possible for God to change him. But we need to be wise about our rebuke. There is a wise way to rebuke and a foolish way to rebuke. I can discuss that more, but I didn't want to digress from this thread's topic.
All replies to this thread are welcome. Thank you.
The Lord says (Luke 16:18b), "whoever marries her that is put away from her husband commits adultery."
But Catholics say, "whoever marries her that is put away from her unbaptized or spiritually immature husband does not commit adultery."
And Protestants say, "whoever marries her that is put away from her unbelieving, unfaithful, or abusive husband does not commit adultery."
I found that both Catholic adjectives underlined above, and 2 of the 3 Protestant adjectives (unbelieving and abusive) come from the idea that, in 1st Cor. 7v15, the Holy Ghost meant for Paul to write "bound" (Greek deo) when he wrote "enslaved" (Greek doulo-o). I have found that this error is rooted in the 12th century Catholic Church. That's long before the Protestant Reformation. So to all of you who are not Catholics, I apologize to you for my church's error. You inherited that from the mother church.
The other Protestant adjective (unfaithful) comes from the idea that, in the Matthew 5:32 / 19:9 exception clause, the Lord meant to say "marital unfaithfulness" (Greek moicheia; Hebrew nawaf) when He said "premarital unfaithfulness" (Greek inappropriate contenteia; Hebrew zanah). That's an error, because the exception clause has to do with putting away a harlot (Greek inappropriate contente), not an adulteress (Greek moichalis). The two scenarios I can think of is: a. the man finds out that his wife got pregnant before the day he started to sleep with her (Mat 1:18-19), or b. the man, in an arranged marriage culture, finds no blood on his wife's wedding cloth (Deu. 22:13-21). The reason why there is no exception clause for the woman putting away her husband (Mark 10:12) is because a man has neither a hymen nor a womb.
Even though the erroneous interpretation of the exception clause (Mat. 5:32 / 19:9) originated in the daughter churches, the mother church is partially to blame because she failed to adequately interpret the clause. To this day, she says it means "except for unlawful marriage" (see Catholic bibles). By unlawful marriage, she means incest, like that of Herod and his brother's wife (Mat. 14:4). Even though incest is a type of inappropriate contenteia (1st Cor. 5:1), that is not what the Lord was referring to. That's because the Lord was referring to a man putting away "his wife" (Mat 5:32 /19:9), not someone else's wife.
If the Lord's definition of adultery with another man's wife is correct, then it means that men have a duty that is not specifically spelled out in scripture. It would be a duty to rebuke a sister's unbelieving husband whenever he leaves her, puts her away, cheats against her, or abuses her. If we have such a sister, then it's cruel to do nothing other than to tell her, "you may not get remarried to another." We must do much more than that. We must rebuke her husband and keep believing that for as long as he is alive, it's possible for God to change him. But we need to be wise about our rebuke. There is a wise way to rebuke and a foolish way to rebuke. I can discuss that more, but I didn't want to digress from this thread's topic.
All replies to this thread are welcome. Thank you.
