PROVE to me that 'except for fornication' was meant only for

_foc
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 8:11 pm

Post by _foc » Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:44 pm

mattrose wrote:How long have you been at this in regards to this particular question? :) I've seen you post this at numerous sites over the past year? How many boards have you posted it on? How long have you been researching this specific question?

Just curious.
Well, the studies themselves have been going on for about 5 years.
As I said, when I posted this thread, I was hoping that someone would have something new to throw my way.

What Ive come to realize is that there are some horrid doctrines out there that are literally helping to destroy marriage and I guess Im trying to find a way to give them the benefit of the doubt by having some piece of information that might help me be able to understand why they believe what they do...even if I disgree with the fact that they are literally ripping marriages apart (cadz.net is a major one currently).

How many boards?
hmm....a couple hundred at least, Id say. I tried to do the math and I think Ive put close to 10,000 hours in on the topic at this point (yes, I need a life :D).

Ive pretty much finalized my own conclusions, but its always interesting to find some new piece of data to see if it fits with what I believe or if I have to amend anything.
For instance, I had always been very adamant about NT polygamy being completely outlawed in this covenant. After having a few folks present some things and going back at scripture trying to leave out my own biases against polygamy, I came away having to believe that while I dont believe it is Gods 'will' for marriage, that for some reason it has always been 'tolerated' and that doesnt seem to have been changed in the NT (seeing that there still is no absolute prohibition).

There are a lot of knowledgeable folks all over the web....really just trying to tap into that knowledge...

:)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:20 pm

It sounds like you're debating a point that is not in contention -- I've never heard that particular point raised, least not here in any event.

If anything, I would expect to hear suggestions that the New Testament teachings of Christ and the apostles were "NOT" for the jews instead of "ONLY" for the jews (which I likewise would reject).

If no one has taken you up on the challenge, maybe you prevailed before you began?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_foc
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 8:11 pm

Post by _foc » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:44 pm

darin-houston wrote:It sounds like you're debating a point that is not in contention -- I've never heard that particular point raised, least not here in any event.

If anything, I would expect to hear suggestions that the New Testament teachings of Christ and the apostles were "NOT" for the jews instead of "ONLY" for the jews (which I likewise would reject).

If no one has taken you up on the challenge, maybe you prevailed before you began?
It was just a situation where I posted this challenge on a few different forums so that anyone who has studied the matter out could throw ideas my way :)
Im a very closed minded person, but I like to re-evaluate what I believe every day to make sure Ive accounted for all of the information.
This thread was an attempt to gain new information from the members of this forum if they had anything ...thats really about it.

:)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_2282
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

foc challenge

Post by __id_2282 » Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:12 am

Dear foc.
like you I too have been studying this topic for years and I find it quite odd depending from which view point or starting point we view from, we can come to completely different conclusions.

First, if we go to the rule of first metion, Genesis. Jesus, says, Matthew 19:4 about Adam and Eve becoming one flesh. Also.
Lot's daughters, were married, yet were engaged. Genesis 19:8 behold now I have two daughters who have not known a man, please let me bring them out to you and do to them as you see fit, only do not do a thing to these men because on account of this they came under my roof.
vs. 14 and lot went out to speak to his sons in laws those who taking his daughters.

They are virgins in verse 8, yet are considered married. The men were called sons in laws.

Were married yet had not come together with their husbands, became one flesh.

also in the matthew 1:18-19 account.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was this way-for his mother mary had been betrothed to Joseph- before they came together (became one flesh)
she was discovered to be pregnant in womb by the Holy Spirit, 19. but her HUSBAND Joseph being just and not willing to make her a public example he purposed to put her away secretly.

Notice: Joseph the betrothed before they came together was called her husband.

If you read in Deut 22,
he will come to her and discover that she is not a virgin and will bring charges against her.

Deut 22:23-24
if there is a girl that IS A VIRGIN, betrothed to a man,(engaged),
and a man finds her in a city and Lies with her, (fornicate),
24, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them with stones so that they die, the girl because she did not cry out being in the city and the man because he has humbled his neighbors WIFE, and you shall put the evil among you.

She is engaged, is a virgin, and Is considered married...

Now according to Jewish custom, during this engagment period, was the time when the groom paid the bride price, would make a toast to his bride and say I go and prepare a place for you, and I will come back for you.
Drinking a glass of wine.
Next he would go and build a house and a wedding chamber for them to spend the wedding week. And this was hard to plan for because of all the guests during the week long celebration.
The groom after a period of preparing usually up to a year, would be then told by his father that the bridal chamber was made ready and the groom would come with his friends and steal his bride away like a thief in the night. she was supposed to have a lamp ready and oil.
and her trousseau also.
Now if during this engagment time she was found to be pregnant, she must be guilty of FORNICATION, he could get a divorce. They were still married because they had already made a covenant together and he paid the bride price for her, yet they had not consummated the marriage, (become one flesh).

Jesus did say in Matthew 19 that this would be hard to accept.
especially for us gentiles who do not understand the customs of his day.
We dont think of the engagment period in our culture as marriage but they were a very lawful people who considered them married and only during this period divorce was applicable.
Why? they had not become one flesh yet.
Jesus in Matthew 19 said fornication and the word adultery.
fornication (porneia) adultery (moicheia)
two different words two different meanings.

Im winging this response and will do some more research to try to prove my source material, so you can look it up for yourself, for your research.

But one thing I have definately observed in my study's.
Bible commentary's and church doctrine has been rewritten to fit the culture.
I belong to the AOG. all their big changes started 1973 if memory serves me well, and this year in 2007 at the general council another big change..
why the change? Culture and the big desire to have mercy on those who have found themselves in a bad situation.
And they wonder why we dont see revival.
2chron 7:14 humble, pray, seek, turn from wickedness. then HE will hear.
instead of appeasing and pleasing, we need to try the repenting.

Could someone please tell me?
in John chapter 8 Jesus tells the pharisees, you will die in your sins.
If you cross reference this he is quoting Ezekiel 3-
if you turn from wickedness you will save yourself.
And in every case, when I preach or anybody else preaches, I can tell them if they turn from wickedness they can find forgivness.
Hatred, malice, strife, fornication, adultery, murder, envy, contentions, the list go's on.
Repent from wickedness, to repent means turn away from. Right?
Right!
and I say to you whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication and shall marry another that one commits adultery and the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery. Matthew 19:9
Matthew 5:32 but I say to you whoever puts away his wife apart from a matter of fornication(engagment period) makes her commit adultery, and who ever shall marry the one put away commits adultery.

COMMITS ADULTERY is not a noun, but a verb.. which is stating that they are living and continuing to live in an adulterous relationship. not a one time act.
NOW THE BIG QUESTION???
What is the fruit of repentance in a situation where a woman or man fool around leave their spouse and marry another, then come back to church and say, well im married now so Im ok with God, you cant discipline me, and churches will even make the man a deacon,,, my church..!
Is there any AG leadership out there who are reading this?

Id love to find out what we do as a church now?
Culture is going to kill us all until we get back to christianity, as Christ intended.

Church vexes me anymore, what I see happening to the sanctity of the covenant of marriage.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1384
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1384 » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:44 am

Excellent post Poet. I have never noticed that about Lot's daughters before. i think we are on the same side on this. Sad that there are sides.

I think you are the first person i have read that has linked revival with this topic. I have been thinking the same thing. Even found a verse to kind of support it :) In the middle of the Ezra passage where unlawful wives are divorced it says:
Ezr 9:8 NKJV And now for a little while grace has been shown from the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a peg in His holy place, that our God may enlighten our eyes and give us a measure of revival in our bondage.
That is sure what we need. I agree with you. If many of our churches are led by those in unlawful marriages, how can God's blessing come? And does Ezra give us the 'simple' solution to deal with unlawful marriages?

It's just so hard to see that God will punish or maybe condemn to Hell a God fearing Christian couple who have remarried. Yet if that marriage is simply adultery what else can He do? And i find supporting scripture in Genesis 20 with Abimelech. It confirms that God will kill a God fearing, righteous man even when he unknowingly takes another person's wife. God had already caused his family to become barren because of Sarah and he hadn't yet married her. (Is that symbolic of our barren churches?)

For me, all the scriptures suggest that God's view of marriage is both much higher and much stricter than what we hear generally. Will God do to my God fearing remarried friends in my church what he had started to do to Abimelech? My heart just won't accept it. But my head (and my Bible) says something different.

Would love to hear your thoughts.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_TK
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio

Post by _TK » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:37 am

agrogers wrote:
It's just so hard to see that God will punish or maybe condemn to Hell a God fearing Christian couple who have remarried. Yet if that marriage is simply adultery what else can He do?
What are you talking about here?

Will David be condemned to hell?

TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)

__id_1384
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1384 » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:52 pm

TK wrote:What are you talking about here?
Will David be condemned to hell?
TK
Hi TK

No, I am sure David will be fine.

I was reading Matthew 7 this morning where those who thought they were saved said 'Lord, Lord' and Jesus responded by saying He didn't know them. They were excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven because they 'practiced lawlessness'.

If adultery is lawlessness as most would agree it is and if those who are remarried unlawfully are therefore practicing adultery then it seems they fit into this category that Jesus described. They consider Jesus to be their Lord, they do work in His name, yet are excluded because they are practicing adultery in a marriage He has forbidden.

Of course the solution to all sin is simple ... but not easy. It is simply repentance. If i have stolen i return what i have stolen. If i am sleeping with my neighbours wife i stop sleeping with her. Simply, I do works 'befitting' repentance. Saying 'Sorry, I was wrong' is not enough. I must stop doing that which is wrong as well. All true Christians do this - confess and forsake their sins.

But this is where an unlawful marriage hits such a big snag. The thing that was wrong was marrying someone I should not have because God considered that person still married to someone else. If that is the case then it seems i only have one option if i am to show Godly repentance - stop sleeping with the person who God says i should never have married and return to the one He says i am married to.

David didn't continue in adultery. Uriah was dead. Bathsheba was free to marry. However for many remarried people today, the first spouse is not dead. If David had taken Bathsheba and Uriah remained alive, then David would have had a big problem. And David realised this. That is why he tried to cover the first sin with the sin of murder. But the point is he did not continue in adultery.

It is a hard saying. It makes the gate very narrow. And it is one that, although i think i have sufficient scriptural support for, i still recoil at. I hope i am wrong. I fear i am right.

PS: Love your CS Lewis quote. That is a gem.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:52 pm

It seems that you are saying that if you are committing adultery, all you have to do is kill the woman's husband, repent of your sin, and you are no longer committing adultery if you continue to copulate with her. That may be technically correct, but I wonder if continuing to have her, or to marry her, indicates that a true repentance has not taken place.

Jesus said that to dismiss one's wife and to marry another is adultery. Surely, to commit adultery, murder the husband, and then marry the wife is far worse.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

__id_1384
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1384 » Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:41 am

Paidion wrote:That may be technically correct, but I wonder if continuing to have her, or to marry her, indicates that a true repentance has not taken place.
Yep, I agree Paidion. It seems to be a loophole of sorts. Yet David was truly repentant so true repentance in such a scenario is possible.
Jesus said that to dismiss one's wife and to marry another is adultery. Surely, to commit adultery, murder the husband, and then marry the wife is far worse.
Yep, i agree there too. It is much worse. However the key issue in my mind is the 'continuing in sin'. God can forgive the greatest of sins. But He won't forgive even small sins if we do not do our best to forsake them.

David didn't continue to do what the Lord forbids. So although his crimes were much greater than the man who simply divorces his wife and marries another, he was not violating any law by taking Bathsheba as his wife. The marriage covenant was ended - Uriah was dead.
Pro 28:13 NKJV He who covers his sins will not prosper, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy.
How does a person who confesses the sin of an unlawful marriage forsake that sin? Doesn't Ezra and John the Baptist give us the answer?

And if they don't forsake their sin, does that mean they will not have mercy? That is what God said to Abimelech isn't it?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1384
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1384 » Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:56 am

Paidion wrote:That may be technically correct
Oh, one other thing that seems technically correct yet ridiculous is that a remarried person has a 50% chance of dying before his abandoned spouse dies. So technically the marriage covenant is then ended. Maybe that makes the adulterous marriage he has gone into that Jesus talks about all OK since his first wife is deceased. I can't see how. But maybe? Seems silly I know. And that makes me think that such legalism (although I prefer to think of it as obedience) in this area is all silly.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Marriage & Divorce”