Divorce and remarriage

[james34]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Nobody denies what "from the beginning it was not so" means, except you. You added your own spin that divorce even for adultery was not permitted before the Law. But you offered no proof.

where was divorce permitted before the law?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by james34

I am well aware of the idea that the word fornication includes adultery , I just do not find it hermeneutically correct. It seems fornication means adultery only in those instances where one is looking to justify the “innocent party” doctrine. The rise of adultery in our culture does not stem from the church having a better handle on the interpretation of the biblical definition of “fornication” or “adultery”,
but rather from a loss of having a handle on the subject. There was a time in the U.S., where the rate of divorce and remarriage ( especially in the church) was minimal at best. But as we can see on this forum , most “churches “ are in agreement with the world.

The sixteenth chapter of Ezekial is packed with information about the relationship of God with Israel. It is perhaps the most revealing passage that I have read that gives us a clue what God thinks about jewelry. But it also is the chapter where God compares His relationship with Israel to marriage. So I’ll copy and paste from the KJV. (Please study the entire chapter. I’ll hit the most relevant to this debate.)

Ezek.16

[1] Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
[2] Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,

This sets the tone. God is speaking. He is talking about abominations. Is that hermeneutically correct so far?

What abominations is He referring to? Well after He describes the jewelry that he decks out His chosen one with, he says this . . .

[15] But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

Israel, to put it succinctly, is playing the whore. She is fornicating. Am I still hermeneutically correct? Take your time.

But I haven’t connected fornication to adultery . . .


Yet.

[20] Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,

This “relationship” has produced children. Now unless you believe God has been fornicating, you would at this point have to believe that God is referring to a marriage relationship.

Like this . . .

[32] But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

Here, after several mentions of the word “fornication” is when the fornication and adultery are tied together. Am I still hermeneutically correct?

But wait, there’s more!

Did you know that God is a divorce’?

I’ll deal with that later . . .

[james34]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

It says to avoid fornication. It doesn’t say to prevent fornication.

I think the context is that the sexual needs of the husband would be satisfied by the good wife, not as you seem to believe that it is impossible for a married man to commit fornication. Adultery is fornication committed by a person who is married. It is a scriptural definition.

I’ll respond with scripture to your next post which will verify that adultery is fornication.

the following passage of scripture finds its place in the text leading up to instructions concerning marriage. He speaks (the context is obvious) referencing an unmarried man.

....Why would Paul be instructing a "married peson" its good not to touch a woman (vs. 1), but then in vs.4 , tell him he doesnt have power over his body but the wife?......

He tells this man what to do to avoid fornication. This leads to the natural next step (the progression of a relationship) of addressing what should be done once one finds himself in the result of obedience to (let every man have his own wife)=marriage.


1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife

[james34]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

The sixteenth chapter of Ezekial is packed with information about the relationship of God with Israel. It is perhaps the most revealing passage that I have read that gives us a clue what God thinks about jewelry. But it also is the chapter where God compares His relationship with Israel to marriage. So I’ll copy and paste from the KJV. (Please study the entire chapter. I’ll hit the most relevant to this debate.)

Ezek.16

[1] Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
[2] Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,

This sets the tone. God is speaking. He is talking about abominations. Is that hermeneutically correct so far?

What abominations is He referring to? Well after He describes the jewelry that he decks out His chosen one with, he says this . . .

[15] But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

Israel, to put it succinctly, is playing the whore. She is fornicating. Am I still hermeneutically correct? Take your time.

But I haven’t connected fornication to adultery . . .


Yet.

[20] Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,

This “relationship” has produced children. Now unless you believe God has been fornicating, you would at this point have to believe that God is referring to a marriage relationship.

Like this . . .

[32] But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

Here, after several mentions of the word “fornication” is when the fornication and adultery are tied together. Am I still hermeneutically correct?

But wait, there’s more!

Did you know that God is a divorce’?

I’ll deal with that later . . .

did he remarry?
was it after death?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by james34

Like Marry and Joseph?

This is really funny when you think about it. Freudian slip?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by james34

I am well aware of the idea that the word fornication includes adultery , I just do not find it hermeneutically correct. It seems fornication means adultery only in those instances where one is looking to justify the “innocent party” doctrine. The rise of adultery in our culture does not stem from the church having a better handle on the interpretation of the biblical definition of “fornication” or “adultery”,
but rather from a loss of having a handle on the subject. There was a time in the U.S., where the rate of divorce and remarriage ( especially in the church) was minimal at best. But as we can see on this forum , most “churches “ are in agreement with the world.

Before we move on, I would like for you to acknowledge that God appears to have used the “innocent party” doctrine that you disparage. And even more importantly that God equated adultery with fornication.

Let’s get this settled first. Then we will move on. Okay?

[james34]

Originally Posted by james34

the following passage of scripture finds its place in the text leading up to instructions concerning marriage. He speaks (the context is obvious) referencing an unmarried man.

....Why would Paul be instructing a "married peson" its good not to touch a woman (vs. 1), but then in vs.4 , tell him he doesnt have power over his body but the wife?......

He tells this man what to do to avoid fornication. This leads to the natural next step (the progression of a relationship) of addressing what should be done once one finds himself in the result of obedience to (let every man have his own wife)=marriage.


1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife

bump

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Before we move on, I would like for you to acknowledge that God appears to have used the “innocent party” doctrine that you disparage. And even more importantly that God equated adultery with fornication.

Let’s get this settled first. Then we will move on. Okay?

Bump, bump

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by james34

where was divorce permitted before the law?

That is the point. You are building a doctrine from silence. You emphatically stated that divorce, even for adultery, was forbidden before the Law, and coffee no proof whatsoever from the scriptures. Now you want me to prove it was? I'm not the one making any pre-law claims here, you are.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Originalist

That is the point. You are building a doctrine from silence. You emphatically stated that divorce, even for adultery, was forbidden before the Law, and coffee no proof whatsoever from the scriptures. Now you want me to prove it was? I'm not the one making any pre-law claims here, you are.

!!!Hardly from silence!!!
Jesus said, Moses allowed a writ of divorcement.

Why do you from silence, assume Moses "allowed" what was already in existence?
If the "allowance" of a writ of divorcement had to be given, then it stands to reason that another way must have been in place from the beginning. The context makes this obvious. Do you care to comment on what that way might have been or what it was not?