As Yahshua and his disciples travel south towards Jerusalem, he’s approached by some Pharisees, “And rising up, He went from there to the region of Judea, and beyond the Jordan; the crowds gathered around Him again, and, according to His custom, He once more began to teach them. And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.”
It’s important to understand the background of this question. Notice they ask if it is lawful for a MAN to divorce his wife, not vice versa. In Jewish culture of that day marriage was not a union of two equals. Women were not allowed to divorce their husband, but a husband was allowed under Jewish law to divorce his wife. So what the Pharisees are really asking is not if it’s ever lawful for a man to divorce his wife, but upon what grounds was it lawful. It was taken for granted that divorce was legal, just as it is today, but on what grounds?
As Yahshua often did, he responds to their question with a question of his own. Look at vv. 3-5, “And He answered and said to them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ And they said, ‘Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.’ But Yahshua said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.’”
By asking this question Yahshua drives them back to the Scripture. He takes them back to the text that was at the very heart of the debate. In response, the Pharisees quote Moses’ words as a justification for divorce, but they refuse to commit themselves on the debate. There is something else here that’s easy to miss. Yahshua asked them what Moses commanded, but they respond by saying what Moses permitted. There is a big difference between commanding something and permitting something. Jesus knew that divorce was never commanded by God, and he was forcing them to see that. In practice, the Pharisees acted as if divorce was something God endorsed and approved of. They thought that if God permitted it he must approve of it.
Their main concern was not true righteousness, but what the law would let them get away with
Yahshua tells us he permitted it because of their hardness of heart. He says divorce was God’s reluctant concession for hard-hearted people. It was a way to stop the bleeding and bring some kind of order and protection to a society that was drifting into chaos. As we’ve already seen, much of what this law did was protect women from calloused men who thought nothing of ruining a woman’s life and reputation by throwing them out on the street. Divorce was never God’s desire, but something that he tolerated because of a person’s hard heart.
Today we know that the divorce rate has hit epi-demic proportions. Why do marriages fail? Is it a lack of communication? Is it problems with the in-laws? Is it sexual incompatibility? Is it financial problems? These things are just symptoms. At the root, the problem is that hearts grow hard. What is a hard heart? It’s a heart that’s stubborn, a heart that is calloused to God and to others. It’s a heart that is bent on going its own way. It’s a heart that is cruel and unforgiving. Sometimes that hardness characterizes one person more than the other, but this is the core of the problem.
Yahshua is very clear on this:
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
But Paul Says"
In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 the apostle Paul instructs believers that if they have a non-Christian husband or wife, they must stay with that husband or wife if they wish to stay. However, if that non-Christian husband or wife wants to leave, the Christian spouse is supposed to allow the non-Christian spouse to leave....
If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (Paul is the only one who taught this)
But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Paul is the only one who teaches this.
Good post, possibly a hub?
Or maybe you are looking to develop it further as a hub and are testing it here?
Either way, good subject.
I was divorced after I came to faith, actually more or less because I came to faith and my then wife wanted none of it, nor me!
She remarried, later I remarried.
I stay out of official ministry, partially for that reason, and I always tell anybody where I stand before discussing marriage with them (hence the disclaimer).
Tricky subject, I look forward to seeing the responses.
Plagarism again Deborah?
http://www.cpcfc.org/position_divorce.h … ;width=600
Wow. You are right. That was just cut and pasted. Didn't bother to give any credit to the author.
Yes and her previous thread was also copy and pasted. Only difference is she changed Jesus to Yahshua in both.
I thought Hub Pages frowned on plagarism, even if the hubber isn't embarrassed by stealing other people's work and posting it as if it was their own.
The First 5 paragraphs are by Mark Mitchell from The Truth About Divorce and Remarriage at http://www.cpcfc.org/position_divorce.h … ;width=600
The rest is by me.
What a great hub, every time I come to one of your Hubs I learn a little more about the specifics of the differences between Paul and Jesus. Obviously the words from 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 are the foundation for the Catholic and Protestant Pharisaical law that establishes believers should only be married to other members of their religious group. Even though I do not agree with with this doctrine it certainly can eliminate a lot of disagreement within a relationship. But then again it creates far to many divorces and hostility.
I do not read the doctrine of Paul because to me I find lies in almost every sentence he has written and my beliefs of Paul parallel those that I have heard from George Bernard Shaw and Thomas Jefferson.
I am also one to believe in the words of Jesus Christ regarding what he said. The only thing is that I interpret it somewhat different than most. Where the exception for divorce because of infidelity is quoted, I believe these words have been influenced from the doctrine of Paul and do not reflect the rest of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
By divorcing a spouse we end up creating separation which more often than not is hostile between the parties. With that, comes anger. Jesus gives us a teaching about anger that we are to reconcile with our brother when we have differences. My brother and sisters are everyone that is in my life including my spouse. It is to easy to justify our actions. And when we use this passage to justify our own divorce that is exactly what we are doing. Building our own ego making it the right thing to do.
When there are only two people without children no one gets hurt except the feelings of both parties and the bond of other family members. But when there are children involved the lives of every family member is affected and the excuse because of infidelity is not one that will unite, on the contrary, it has the ability to destroy family members for their lifetime. You can not give all members of the family a writ of divorcement only your spouse but each family member is equally affected. With out going into this deeper it becomes obvious to me that when understood as a reason to divorce it becomes not of God but of our own selfish desire to justify our own action. This is something I have done in the past and can also see the destruction created by these decisions.
Regarding marriage after divorce I believe that God created a man and a woman to be together to be help mates for each other this is the nature of Gods creation. Also that a written marriage statement is of government not of God and used as a guide for people of the society to follow. People that live together as Adam and Eve, do not have a writ of Marriage or become divorced but have a bond created by nature to need each other.
In regards to remarriage I believe as Jesus said it best when he said, Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s" which is a marriage or divorce certificate and "Give to God what is Gods." God’s relationship with all of us is our lives, within this we choose either things that are helpful to our lives or things that are harmful. For me Jesus is my guide to making helpful choices they never let me down only when I misinterpret.
When we legislate a relationship to be of God, only when a piece of paper is involved, I believe we have allowed government to be our God pushing the real God out of our lives.
To me the teachings of Jesus reflect principles of reality, not the legislation of Pharisees, of which Paul is all about, being justified by faith not by what exist. Faith is an unknown, reality can be seen.
I keeping with what aquasilver said.
The non christian wanted nothing to do with Christianity. So what is the christian to do, force abidement? On so many levels it makes sense to be peacemakers, like Paul says.
In Gentile Land, People marry whom they want to marry, then they come to Christ later on in life, sometimes the spouse is okay with that, sometimes not.
Once again it is different with gentiles. Jews marry Jews and both have God from the beginning, but Gentiles do not wait to become christian before they marry in Gentile Land.
Christians married to non-Christians, of course, should try to keep the marriage going, which Paul says, but if it has too much contention, and one is fed up, let that person leave. Now this could mean a time of separation which may or may not lead to divorce or straight into divorce. But to end war in marriage and to show love, keeping the peace is paramount.
If gentiles were christian from birth and all had God as jews are jewish from birth and all have God, then there would be no mixed marriages, but once a born again christian accepts Jesus they are involved in a mixed marriage. And God said never to be married to another race in the OT, for obvious reasons.
christian and non-christian are different races - so to speak.
So if the law of Moses is applied, the law of Moses is broken either way. It is an unequal yoke. Two different lifestyles. Believer with non-believer or Jew and gentile. God's people and a pagan.
The other way the law of moses is broken is by tyranny. If one oppresses the other and forces their ways or makes them stay against their will. We see this is not the happy union that the God of the OT purposed for his people.
If gentile people marry being christian then the law of Moses can be applied and they should remain together for all time, because then they are considered both as Jews or Gods people and can pull the cart together. It is as Paul said.
Paul's instruction, once again, is sound.
Aquasilver is fine and his 2nd marriage is blessed. He need not flog himself and enjoy what God has given him.
You said in another thread that you shut down this thread by showing I am wrong
Again you believe Paul over Yahshua who said fornication is the only accepted reason to divorce anyone.
If a person divorces (believer or not) and marries again, they are committing adultery.
They can't say God forgive me and keep committing Adultery.
The reason this thread never went anywhere is because most Christians are divorced.
They don't want to get involved in this discussion.
I suspect you are also divorced.
Most Christians are divorced? That's news to me and the Churches I attended over the years.
At least on this forum. They won't comment.
I know a lot of divorced christians
Start a thread and ask how many are divorced
I apologize for saying "most" because it's not fair.
Though there are a lot
To be fair to you, stats I quickly looked up show little difference between Christian divorce rates and the wider population in the US, and a little higher in the UK.
Again, the difference is that Gentiles live without God, they are born without God - most of them, indeed a great number of the population. When a person divorces, without God in their life... is God never going to forgive them when they come to realize God exists?
So both people marry different people - without God in their life - are they condemned forever?
So one of these people find God, repent and are even baptized. Do you suggest they go back to their previous wife? Do you say that God will not forgive their previous marital situations even after they discover that God exists?
Shall we now shackle the law to them and have them break up the other marriage and be married to them again? Does this not cause the one without God, his first marriage, lets say, to become divorced and hence condemned?
Jesus spoke to the JEWS, who as i said before "have God in their life from birth" and because of this they are without excuse.
Having God from birth is what makes the difference. The Jews have God from birth, this we know.. but the gentiles.. have not God, this we also know.
I have never married and i think you assume most are divorced is the reason this thread shut down.. your first commenter was divorced.
"If a person divorces (believer or not) and marries again, they are committing adultery. They can't say God forgive me and keep committing Adultery."
Ahh, so finally we have the unforgivable sin detailed.
If what you state above is fact, then NO divorced and remarried believer can be saved, because (in your statement) no amount of repentance can ever bring reconciliation with God and forgiveness.
Is that what you believe and meant to state?
I openly discuss this issue, would never enter any group of new (to me) believers without addressing them as to my marital status, and certainly never minister or preach without those involved being fully aware that I am a divorced and remarried man.
Before I came to faith, note BEFORE I married a woman who was pregnant with our son to be, we married for her convenience in the seventh month of pregnancy, and from the time she gave birth, she shunned any further sexual contact.
She happened to be a woman who had no motherly instincts, the child was born by caesarian and so I had him for the first hour or so before she re-awoke.
She made one attempt at breast feeding, did not like it and so he was bottle fed from day one, by me.
I changed his diapers, kept the night watches, and raised him mostly without her assistance as she was busy in her film industry job, which took her away from 'home' most weeks.
When he was three years old, I came to faith, and tried to interest her in that, she was not in the least interested, totally a secular person, and still is 19 year later.
When he was aged 3 years and 361 days, she left us (yes 4 days before his fourth birthday) and moved to a new home.
Some months later, she entered into a new relationship with another guy.
I tried reconciliation for two years, she refused all attempts to reconcile.
I stayed single, though there was a woman who pursued me, and yes I was a fornicator in turmoil, because my reading of scripture led me to take exactly your stance, and I realised that I need surrender my sexuality, so became celibate.
When my son was 8 years old, a woman entered my life, a non believer, but this woman just seemed correct for me, and after a few weeks of knowing her (not biblically) she came to faith.
We lived apart for two years, we stayed chaste, and resolved that we would not enter into sexual relations unless and until we were married.
Eventually my 'first' wife divorced me, for the benefit of the child.
Then I married my first and only Christian wife.
We refused to marry in our church, we married in a registry office with two believing friends and our son as witnesses, the 'real' marriage in God sight, before the 'congregation' took place in the gardens outside of the registry office.
Ten years later, we received a 'church blessing' marriage in our own church.
Neither of us would ever be unfaithful to each other, she is my wife for life. We have one ten year old daughter, this June will be our 15th wedding anniversary, we are both drawing closer to each other as we draw closer to Christ.
There will never be a divorce from each other.
Please tell; me should I put her aside in order to cease being an 'adulterer'?
Your advice is welcomed.
Thanks brotheryochanan, I would like to get a ruling on this, though I guess my wife will be distraught if I need to cast her out of the marriage bed.
If you are a murderer and find God, confess Christ, go to church but you keep murdering,
Do you think you will be accepted?
Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
You can High Five each other, but not God.
I'm so glad you did not mean that
Yahshua said it not me.
When you marry you are one. Only fornication can separate you, otherwise you are still married even with that paper.
Since you are one and still married in God's eyes, you commit adultery if you marry again.
(You seem to believe the law Moses gave them about divorce.
B.Y. too but he states he doesn't live by the O.T.)
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin-one unforgivable sin.
Remarrying without fornication being the cause is continuing sin of the same offense.
Salvation is between each person and God..so I don't know if you will be in the 1st or 2nd resurrection.
5. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8. He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Ok, so you seem to confirming that as my ex wife left me to live (in fornication?) with another man, I do not need to cast aside my believing wife of 15 years, would that be correct?
Right, God doesn't expect you to suffer because she did a terrible thing.
Thank you, I think it is important that we do not place those who are in this situation under any confusion.
Generally I would think that those involved in this discussion would all know these scriptures well, and be able to discern the correct answer, however I am sure that many read, but do not comment, and may be plunged into guilt, rather than conviction, concerning their situation.
I know that the first Presbyterian pastor I consulted was of the opinion that I was confined to a celibate unmarried status for all time until either reconciliation could be effected, or one party died.
Of course by OT scripture, the moment she 'remarried' her fornicator, I was unable to reconcile anyway, whether I wanted to or not.
Clarity helps, I thank you for your replies.
For the record, I do not condone or agree with divorce between two believers who married in faith, however it happens and I suppose the degree of each believers actual faith at the time they married, must be taken into account.
All those in leadership should minister on this subject to those they serve.
couple of quick notes:
What therefore GOD hath joined together.... how does God join the gentiles to their wives? Remember the gentiles live without the knowledge of God and do things according to their own wiles. It is safe to assume that God did not join the gentiles to their wives as i am sure many gentile courtships are outside the principles of God.
Why did Moses then command.... this passage seems to read that Moses gave the command, as if by moses decision this bill of divorcement was allowed. So it seems that although this bill of divorcement was not instituted by God, God did however, allow moses to install it and it seems God was aware but did not forbid it.
We have the same instance with Paul's decree of how pagan and christian marriages or one with God and one without God should be handled.
If Moses can do this, so can Paul. There is a similarity involved.
Now again, i have to take this back to the main point of my post and this is that JESUS spoke the JEWS. It is easy to administer the laws of Moses to the JEWS because the JEWS were taught about God and in Gods people from birth and therefore they knew all about God and what His standards are.
But the gentiles/pagans did not know and do not know until they come to Christ.
And so being in the midst of their second marriages, unawares of Gods laws are in a pickle indeed.
Therefore did Paul say, IF the UNbelieving choose to remain married to the believer (who in the midst of their 10th year of marriage become a believer), let her remain; but if the UNbelieving not want to be a christian, let her leave. Peace is the main issue.
It is not okay to force people to live married under these circumstances. Nor is it a requirement that the new convert christian seek out his former wife to remarry her. Once a person repents and comes to Christ he is forgiven by God for the lifestyle he previously lived unawares of christ and this includes divorce also.
I don't think i can explain this any clearer, sorry if I am still unclear as to my position.
You two are really freaking me out here. What, exactly, are gentile wiles. I've lived for a number of years and met quite a few people from various walks of life and gentile wiles has never come up in a conversation.
Oh, and one more point. Moses' decree, Paul's decree......whatever. Maybe that is the key to'gentile wiles' We have brains and use them to understand what is right and why it is right; instead of attempting to figure out what long dead men from failed civilizations would have us do.
Gentile wives would be a wife that you married BEFORE either of you came to faith in Christ.
If the couple them BOTH come to faith in Christ, then both move from Gentile (unbelieving) to Christian (believers).
If only one comes to faith and the other does not, then the unbeliever would still be classed as 'gentile' (unbelieving)and therefore could not be expected to adhere to the same 'rules' that govern Christian marriage.
By 'Christian marriage' I do not refer to ALL weddings conducted in a church, for some folk who marry in church are not necessarily prepared to adhere to Christ's rules on marriage.
Of course in truth no Christian minister should agree to marry such folk, but then it's plain that many churches have dropped into apostasy and Churchianity, whilst still retaining the title 'Christian'.
Gentile derives from Latin gens (from which, together with forms of the cognate Greek word genos, also derive gene, general, genus and genesis). The original meaning of "clan" or "family" was extended in post-Augustan Latin to acquire the wider meaning of belonging to a distinct nation or ethnicity. Later still the word came to refer to other nations, 'not a Roman citizen'. After the Christianization of the empire it could also be used of pagan or barbarian cultures.
In the Bible
In Saint Jerome's Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, gentilis was used in this wider sense, along with gentes, to translate Greek and Hebrew words with similar meanings when the text referred to the non-Hebrew peoples.
The most important of such Hebrew words was goyim (singular, goy), a term with the broad meaning of "peoples" or "nations" which was sometimes used to refer to Israelites, but most commonly as a generic label for peoples. Strong's Concordance defines goy as "nation, people, usually of non-Hebrew people, or of descendants of Abraham, or of Israel, or of a swarm of locusts or other animals (fig.) Goyim = 'nations'." Strongs #1471
In the King James Version, Gentile is only one of several words used to translate goy or goyim. It is translated as "nation" 374 times, "heathen" 143 times, "Gentiles" 30 times, and "people" 11 times. Some of these verses, such as Genesis 12:2 ("I will make of thee a great nation") and Genesis 25:23 ("Two nations are in thy womb") refer to Israelites or descendants of Abraham. Other verses, such as Isaiah 2:4 and Deuteronomy 11:23 are generic references to any nation. Typically the KJV restricts the translation to "Gentile" when the text is specifically referring to non-Hebrew people. For example, the only use of the word in Genesis is in chapter 10, verse 5, referring to the peopling of the world by descendants of Japheth, "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."
In the New Testament, the Greek word "ethnos" is used for peoples or nations in general, and is typically translated by the word "people", as in John 11:50 ("Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."). The translation "gentiles" is used in some instances, as in Matthew 10:5–6 to indicate non-Israelite peoples:
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
In that instance, Gentiles becomes a reference to pagan cultures of the period.
Does that suffice?
It was a bit much. For what we both knew was a rhetorical question.
I still think you guys are somewhat in left field on the whole topic.
Apologies, I misconstrued your question!
Bit to 'left field', yep, I guess I am in some issues.
I like to get things straight from my perspective, and understanding these aspects helps me, even if it confuses others on occasion.
A financial due diligence house I worked for a long time ago had the motto " A decision is as good as the facts it is based upon" I guess it kind of stuck in my thinking!
It stuck in your thinking? Could of fooled me.
Seriously. Just kidding. I, unlike you, truly want a world where everyone can follow their conscience without backhanded insults by those with different spiritual leanings.
I have no problem with a world where everyone can follow their conscience, that's their prerogative, but my conscience (literally 'with knowledge')leads me to state what I have found to be true, it's up to others to 'follow their conscience' as they see fit.
If my utterances challenge or convict (in their 'conscience') their 'follow their conscience' decisions, that is hardly my fault, and partially my 'job description'.
Equally when someone challenges or convicts me of error, I try to rethink my ways.
It's a two way street, today I watched a good video about atheist thinking which supplied me with a far better understanding of how they think.
That is of course what people want. They want to live by their own conscience and consequently, as goes hand in hand, make up their own rules. But Jesus came to say the rules that people make are just not good enough and he pressed for truth, honesty and conviction that God exists.
If you want a world where everyone follows their own conscience, i might enjoy to remind you, YOU have that world NOW. If you think it needs improvement then the only one that can improve that is one who can get into the consciences of humankind and change them and that would be God.
As to backhanded insults, well, terminology does what terminology does, it categorizes but also works toward clarity sake. It uniforms meanings of words so a common dialogue and understanding can assist in knowing what people are talking about.
As to long dead men from failed civilizations... statements like this just make me laugh. All of our knowledge in our civilization comes from long dead men in other civilizations; Math, geography, science, culture, poetry.. As a human being i do not dis those that have lived in the past and tried to better society through their efforts, even as crude as society was long back then, they can hardly be construed as failed - conquered maybe, failed no. Just think a couple of thousand years from now you may well have existed in a long dead and failed society and when people read your hubs and comments they, as you do, should just shun your words and all words from everybody because they come from long dead societies. I don't think this type of analysis is very logical or kind, it verges more on criticism and not the constructive type.
i meant gentile wiles - it was not a typo.
wiles.. cunning devices, own way.
i meant wives when i typed wives.
Congrats Agua! I would hope God has a wife for me like yours one day.
I've had two misfortunate relationships, both ending due to the same reason. No marriages, and I was improper. But now only God.. Him only and if I'm meant to have someone - I'll let Him find her. He knows best.
It's nice to hear your story. Put a smile on my face.
Happy endings are great - And of course you're right, lol..
God bless your marriage.
Vector, you can be sure that God has a good wife for you, my error pre faith was to assume that ANY compatible woman would suffice, but God has higher standards and if we let Him, will match us correctly... not necessarily perfectly, but a spouse that will test us, and try us and change us into the man or woman of God we should be.
Thank you for Gods blessings.
Do you want people here to advise you from a point of view of compassion, reasonableness, and fairness, or do you want us to refer you to what the Bible says Jesus said?
I'll assume the latter. That is, after all, the standard you apply to gay couples, right?
In that case, you are living in an adulterous relationship, and your only option is to return and attempt to reconcile with your first wife. The only exception is for unchastity (porneias) - if your wife had misled you into thinking she was a virgin before you married.
Matthew 5: 31-32
Note the exemption isn't for adultery (moicheuei/moichatai), but rather for unchastity (porneias). It was considered an abrogation of marital vows in Biblical times for a woman to be found out that she was not a virgin. Refer to the interlinear Greek:
Highly amusing, my first wife never mislead me, however she did leave me and commit fornication, which we have already established created a reason for divorce, but even so I did attempt reconciliation.... did you actually read what I wrote, no thought not, just thought to pen some sarcastic reply, never mind.
I apply no standard to homosexual couples, what they do is their business, indeed I care not one jot what they do to each other, anybody else in the bath house, with how many, or even what they do with their dog.
Equally I expect that they will disregard what I believe to be true and cease trying to force me to accept their lifestyle choices, or pay 'lip service' to their protestations of innocence and normality.
Shall we go any further or have I satisfied your pique?
It's not about me, aguasilver. I've pointed to scripture in my arguments; you have not. I'll let you argue that porneias and moichatai mean the same thing. No doubt plenty of other divorced Christians will agree with your opinion.
It would appear that th eword is mostly translated as used:
πορνείας (porneias) — 12 Occurrences
Matthew 5:32 N-GFS
BIB: παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν
NAS: for [the] reason of unchastity, makes
KJV: for the cause of fornication, causeth
INT: except on account of sexual immorality, causes her
John 8:41 N-GFS
BIB: Ἡμεῖς ἐκ πορνείας οὐκ* ἐγεννήθημεν·*
NAS: to Him, We were not born of fornication; we have
KJV: born of fornication; we have one
INT: We out of sexual immorality not have been born;
Acts 15:20 N-GFS
BIB: καὶ τῆς πορνείας καὶ [τοῦ]
NAS: by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled
KJV: and [from] fornication, and
INT: and sexual immorality, and that
Acts 15:29 N-GFS
BIB: πνικτῶν καὶ πορνείας· ἐξ ὧν
NAS: and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep
KJV: and from fornication: from
INT: from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality; out of which
1 Corinthians 7:2 N-AFP
BIB: δὲ τὰς πορνείας ἕκαστος τὴν
NAS: But because of immoralities, each man
KJV: Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let
INT: moreover sexual immorality each the
1 Thessalonians 4:3 N-GFS
BIB: ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας,
NAS: [that is], that you abstain from sexual immorality;
KJV: should abstain from fornication:
INT: from sexual immorality,
Revelation 2:21 N-GFS
BIB: ἐκ τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς.
NAS: to repent of her immorality.
KJV: of her fornication; and she repented
INT: out of the immorality of her;
Revelation 9:21 N-GFS
BIB: ἐκ τῆς πορνείας αὐτῶν οὔτε
NAS: nor of their immorality nor
KJV: of their fornication, nor of
INT: out of the immorality of them, nor
Revelation 14:8 N-GFS
BIB: θυμοῦ τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς πεπότικεν
NAS: of the passion of her immorality.
KJV: of the wrath of her fornication.
INT: settled-opposition of the immorality of her she has given to drink
Revelation 17:2 N-GFS
BIB: οἴνου τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς.
NAS: with the wine of her immorality.
KJV: the wine of her fornication.
INT: wine of the immorality of her.
Revelation 17:4 N-GFS
BIB: ἀκάθαρτα τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς,
NAS: and of the unclean things of her immorality,
KJV: filthiness of her fornication:
INT: uncleanness of immorality of her;
Revelation 18:3 N-GFS
BIB: θυμοῦ τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς πέπτωκαν*
NAS: of the passion of her immorality, and the kings
KJV: of her fornication, and
INT: settled-opposition sexual immorality of her have drunk
But thanks for the resource link, great pages!
If you're so inclined, you can read about the difference between fornication and adultery in the Bible here:
http://www.rmsbibleengineering.com/Page … ge2_1.html
Adultery: Illicit intimate sex between one man and one woman whereby the offender (the Adulterer) is currently married.
Fornication: Illicit intimate sex between one man and one woman whereby the offender (the Fornicator) is currently NOT married.
Thanks again for the link, another good source to enjoy!
Fortunately in our marriage neither of us have been guilty of either offence.
We only married after my first wife had divorced me, we were both single, we did not fornicate before marriage.
But you are a great source of information about scripture, and I thank you for that.
Well, it's fortunate that the state allowed your ex to divorce you so that you could marry someone you truly love. Under the law that Jesus spoke about, that would not have been possible, and you'd technically be in an adulterous relationship right now.
Good thing our law today doesn't adhere to strict Biblical strictures.
As my first wife left me because of my new found faith, I had no option but to consent to divorce, however, we lived in Spain, and until very recently divorce would have been impossible there.
The main fact is that when I married my first wife, I was a total non believer, and neither of us put any thought to marriage, she actually said we should marry so that the child to be born would have my name, and it would make it easier if we separated later for me to have custody.
Of course she should have said 'when' not 'if'.
Our 'marriage' was of convenience entered into to satisfy the state and gain legal recognition in what was then a very Catholic country.
God seems to have worked things out fine though.
Yes, well, it's hard to argue with "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" which is why those Catholic-dominated countries made divorce illegal.
I guess the Protestant world allowing divorce for perfectly sensible reasons like yours is just one example where the yoke of Jesus's law has been loosened.
Agreed, personally I would like to see getting married made more difficult and divorce then made harder, but that's a personal choice, based upon my own foolhardiness for most of my life.
People really do not truly understand what a marriage entails when they ask to get married.
Thanks for the discussion.
Just a point. Either way, you are all attempting to argue law without the benefit of spirit. The point of the statement in the gospels had absolutely nothing to do with 'never divorce, or you wil be judged harshly'. The point was not to hide behind the law to do your dirty work. You might be justified by law, but if you wantonly hurt another human to satisfy a selfish desire, because it's legal, it is still wrong.
Paul.....who cares what his agenda was? He was simply creating law to hide behind. As evidenced by the Christian rebuttals
This thread us about Paul and his agenda.
The law is still in effect, and the law is not hard.
Oh, the law is very hard. Which is why we all scramble to circumvent it. The point of the law, imo, is to put others needs and feelings on an equal footing with our own. And even to go so far as to put their needs above our own desires, if our desires would hurt another human being.
We will always create law in order to appease our consciences. The point in the gospels was to remember that this means nothing. We will still know in our hearts what we have done is wrong. We have to come to grips with it and rectify it, if we are ever to find true peace.
I don't know what's so hard about, but that's not my business.
God said the law was given for our good.
says they are to keep everything God has told them "all the days of their life" and teach them to their son's and their son's sons.
Paul wanted us to think that no one can become righteous through the law.
Paul said the Law was given so every man would become guilty. Paul is the only ONE who ever made this statement in scripture
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God
But the scriptures tell us differently. The Law was given so it might be well with us, for our good
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day
That's another point I saw in the gospels. You don't need to quote scripture. The universal law is written into our hearts. We know what hurts. We know what's wrong. Scripture is little more than a crutch for those who can't hear their conscience and a club for those who ignore their conscience.
The spirit of the law is the goal, because the written law is too easily misinterpreted.
Which scriptures are you referring to:
Love the lord thy God with all thy heart, soul and strength
do not blend the fabrics of different linens together?
The thing about conscience is that people even when they hear it can ignore it and after repeated ignorings they no longer hear or adhere to what their conscience is saying. Of course conscience does not immediately make people correct with God. Human conscience falls short of what God expects - painfully obvious in societies around the world.
And we need to be reminded of a Scripture that says:
" Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. "
the point of this scripture is that He will be their God after he has written his ways in their hearts. Not before. So we clearly have a people whose conscience is re-written AFTER they have become Gods people.
Ya can't please God or be of his people without God in the picture and ya can't put God in the picture according to your own designs. Clearly without God, ones conscience is just ungodly.
Give it up BO. We've proven this is beyond your ken.
My sensibilities may not be as delicate as you appear to imagine, BO. Of course it pains me to see you floundering, but that is your choice. You are an adult, are you not?
Well that is not the response i wanted to evoke.
I was hoping to goad you into a more informed response, like maybe something like; that post doesn't make sense to me, because of this and this reason. But instead you chose a post of condescension and backhanded insult. Maybe we could have dealt a bit more with my (supposed) floundering.
Please accept my apology, you seem to be more delicate than i thought.
Apology accepted, but unnecessary. Have you ever watched the show 'Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader'? Our exchanges remind me of my opinion of that show. You have undoubtedly studied the text. You know it backwards and forwards. But, you haven't broadened your education. You have limited yourself to the pursuit of knowledge at the expense of never attaining wisdom. Wisdom within the realm of religion and philosophy is only attained through well rounded education and life experience. Without a deeper understanding, empty words are all you are left with.
thank you for your opinion.
Does knowledge in geography make a person a better mathematician? Will understanding the veda make a better christian?
I put before you that studying God makes for a more knowledgeable student of God. I submit, that understanding any of the ways that God is not involved in, religiously speaking, will not make a better christian, except possibly to show what must not be done; but the goal is to understand and know God and be a christlikeian in The Way.
The word limitation, as you put it, is the wrong word, l would use distractions. There is so much to be distracted by we become that kind of person who having started many things has many things unfinished.
True wisdom is only given by God - Solomon for example and 1/3 of proverbs.
To say my words are empty, is again, your opinion and you do seem to have lots of those. They may be empty to you but that is because of who you are and what you are concerning my words. Thereby you have your opinion.
You are correct i am unchallenged by our debates, they have been quite the pettifog You are clearly over there in your opinions and i am clearly on the mark, not floundering around as you suspect probably because i know the scriptures and have not been spending a whole lot of time dallying around with other types of information.
BO, let's be brutally honest.
Oh, in the interest of accuracy I'll change that statement. I'll be brutally honest.
Yours is nothing more than an opinion. I understand that your ego blinds you to this simple fact. Yet, facts are what they are. You remain unchallenged in your dark and lonely world because you have wilfully allowed yourself to become indoctrinated. That is your choice and your right to choose that path. Those in the real world who choose to look about and reason without the encumbrance of delusion could never see anything valid in your interpretation.
If you doubt, take the time to read the posts of others. There are actually some very deep spiritual thinkers who share this site with us. If you take the time to think about what they say you might learn something useful. Or, you could certainly continue on the easy route you appear to have become accustomed to.
Geographers have the Earth, mathematicians have numbers and formulas to study. What does a believer study if he can't see God? Thin air?
In Jesus (Yashua) own words: Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
All manner of sin is forgiven. There is only one sin that is not forgiven and that is blaspheming the Holy Ghost.
That's right virgil
I am reminded of the woman (of samaria) at the well. Jesus said you have had 5 husbands and the one you are with now is not your husband. It seems 5 husbands can be forgiven by God.
Also the woman caught in adultery - those who are without sin cast the first stone and neither do i condemn you, but go and SIN no more.
God will not hold people to the errors of their past. This is why christians say that God forgives their (past) sins, including divorces.
I think this topic goes to the christians and leaves the law abiders with food for thought.
If you use your freedom of divorce just to have pleasure with many women as you can sleep with, then you are not in the grace of God. Divorce is not your good choice.
That's why we are in a Catholic country and we won't allow divorce here. Some people might use these divorce to have more women in their lives, especially rich people.
Laws are made by God not to keep us unhappy but to keep us safe and have peace of mind.
Are you kidding me? I'll tell you what the problem is.
"I am a Reiki Master, Ordained Licensed Minister in the United States and I have my certificate of semichah (Ordained as a Rabbi) in Jewish Mysticism."
You can't be all of those and still be one person.
by kirstenblog6 years ago
Marriages hit rough spots, sometimes long ones too. Put two separate individuals in an intimate relationship and arguments/fights are normal, eventually, even if the love is still strong. The frequency of arguments may...
by Jewels294017 months ago
I know that getting married young was probably the first sign that marriage was maybe a bad idea, but a marriage isn't going to work when only one person is putting forth an effort to make it work. I was 22 when I got...
by Jyoti Kothari6 years ago
Modern days witness a lot of divorces. This is spreading like an epidemic over the globe. There are many divorces now-a-days even in the countries where family bond was traditionally very strong. It creates a lot...
by karobi5 years ago
Hi every body, posted and read most of hubbers comment on issues of marriage. And also with my experience in marriage counseling I have discovered so many challenges facing these days marriages and of course the high...
by MissStoryTeller12 months ago
So I met up with a couple of friends last weekend and we started talking about the subject line. These are girls from my childhood whom I haven't seen in a while. One of these friends had an arranged marriage recently...
by ib radmasters3 years ago
The ultimate problem with two people wanting to have a loving long term relationship is MARRIAGE.Marriage is an implied vague and ambiguous contract that has been used forever. When the couple in the marriage decide to...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.