Sin against the body

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:03 am

Diserner,

Thanks for the answer. Of course this is your interpretation based on the conclusions you have drawn regarding marriage. It is the popular one, I do recognize that.

Not to open another conversation of most likely disagreement........................but I wonder how you and the others here feel about God's command to not eat pork. Is this because God hates the pig? Or is there something about pork that is unhealthy to the body. I don't want to start a discussion on whether the law delivered by Moses is still in effect........that is not the point.

That being said...................eating food that is unhealthy is not only damaging to your actual flesh and bones; it is also disrespect to the Creator. And since the body is the temple for the Holy Spirit, it would also "grieve" the Spirit. So it is both physical and non-physical/spiritual. Physical in that your body will suffer. Spiritual in that you are grieving the spirit as the body is the temple for the spirit.

Do you believe God commanded us not to eat pork because He hates the pig; or because pork is unhealthy for the body? (rhetorical)

I believe when Paul made a specific point or even 'pause' to explain that sexual immorality is a sin like no other.............he was literally making a distinction between sins that dwell in the spirit/heart/soul and a sin which is a direct violation of flesh and blood. Obviously an unpopular interpretation. But understand that my interpretation does not solely rest on this one particular passage. It is taking the ENTIRETY of Scripture into consideration. Dinah's brothers called Dinah -- Defiled. If there is no violation against the actual flesh and blood, why was Dinah defiled. Surely forgiveness will suffice. Amazingly...........death followed. Whenever you deal with sex and marriage in the Scriptures, death is often part of the equation. The man who rapes -- death. The girl who lies about her virginity -- death. David had to have Uriah killed. The list goes on and on. Judah and Tamar. God killed in this situation. "Go into your brother's wife and marry her". You cannot find ONE example of a non-virgin (not including widow) girl taking a husband and it be a righteous union.

Paul says sexual immorality is a sin like no other. All other sins are "outside the body" he says -- Sins of the heart/mind/soul. Sexual immorality is NONE OF THESE. Paul calls it 'against the body'. I believe, and Scripture affirms, that sexual immorality is a direct violation against the flesh.

"For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." 2 Cor 11:2

I don't like to use "non-biblical" sources to prove a position; BUT, if you study history as it relates to "betrothal", you find that the betrothal period was one of 9 months. Why 9 months? It was a time designated to judge the authenticity of the bride's virginal status. Like Mary, a woman found pregnant would violate marriage law.

We can confirm that here as Paul uses the illustration of the betrothal period to highlight a spiritual reality. Paul relates being "pure" -- sinless; to a bride to be being a virgin upon her wedding night. Paul desires that upon that great day of judgment, that we be found a spiritual virgin -- sinless. Just as a woman must be a 'virgin' in order to have a righteous marital union.

And let us not forget -- "There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried......" Who is the unmarried? The virgin.

It seems only one person here made the distinction that sexual immorality was directly related to the flesh. Paidon I believe. He made the connection that a Venereal Disease was a likely result of such a sin.

All the other interpretations focus on the supernatural --- the mind/soul/heart connection. Covetousness is a sin against the mind/soul/heart. Idolatry -- mind/soul/heart. Sexual immorality is in a category all it's own.

Thanks for your time. I learn everyday.

Here is a medical study which reveals a man's DNA being found in women's DNA -- http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-934 ... 6/abstract

The Scriptures speak to the woman being "known" by the man as a result of sexual intercourse. The Old Testament writers did not understand DNA as we do today. But obviously the Spirit led them. How is "one flesh" anything other than physical? Not to mention that an actual human life form can be the result of the sexual union. The child is both a creation of the man's blood (dna) and the woman's blood. Fascinating.

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:16 am

Pastor Gregg,

Do you agree with Michelle when I asked her the following:

Is the woman who has taken a second husband while her first husband is alive............is she along with the man forgiven if they continue the relationship?


Michelle's response: They can be forgiven, yes.



Do you agree with this position?

In other words..............is "death" not the only vehicle by which the one flesh bond is broken i.e., "but if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband."

Do you agree with Michelle in that 'forgiveness' also releases the law of her husband?

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:54 am

I'm sorry that the "message" over at the areyoumarried blog came across as not Christ-like.

There are others out there who espouse similar teachings. You may consider the writings of -- http://m.blogs.christianpost.com/marria ... law-11460/ This man has even written a book I believe.

Sample -
Notice that in Christ’s simple legal marital description He made no allusions to any civil document, covenant commitment, vow, public demonstration, or anything else, which so many declare as a necessary ingredient(s) for making a marriage. However, the one very important allusion that he referenced was the sexual make-up of the two humans created. When these two sexes become physically intimate, they then have an individual knowledge of the other (discovering each other’s sexual identity), making a marriage. The male and female become what Jesus said – “one flesh,” which equals marriage. As I have declared in the past, it will either be a legitimate marriage or an illegitimate one.

http://maranathalife.com/marriage/mar-sex1.htm

Sample --
Actually, the sexual union is the part that makes it a marriage, not the ceremony in the church. We even call a newlywed's first sexual act on their wedding night "consummating the marriage." The word "consummate" means to "finalize" or "make complete" as in finalizing a contract. They aren't really married until that point, all they've done is have a wedding ceremony.

Even a sexual relationship with someone whom we do not want to be "joined together" with will still produce a marriage. Paul said: "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." (1 Corinthians 6:16) Since becoming one flesh is the definition of marriage, we could paraphrase this scripture to say "he who goes to bed with a harlot has become married to her."


http://www.christjustified.com/marriage.html

sample -- There is no marriage vow (swearing) in the entire bible.


http://www.end-time-issue-ministries.or ... enant.aspx

sample --
My main point is that sexual intercourse with a virgin IS a covenant act and that, whether we like it or not, at the moment that blood is shed a covenant is entered into that is INTENDED to be unbreakable and for life

http://www.one4thechild.org/

User avatar
dizerner
Posts: 1221
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:43 pm

Re: Sin against the body

Post by dizerner » Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:20 am

Do you believe God commanded us not to eat pork because He hates the pig; or because pork is unhealthy for the body? (rhetorical)
Neither, I'd say it's a shadow and symbol of a spiritual reality.

Did God command the oxen be fed as they plow because he loved oxen? Paul seems to see another symbolic and metaphorical meaning to it:

9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about?
10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written... (1Co 9:9-10 NKJ)
~ Classical Arminian Christian Mystic ~

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:19 am

Discerner,

Apples and Oranges.

We do know that Pork is unhealthy. The food laws were in place both for symbolic reasons and for very practical reasons.

Do you eat shellfish? I don't. If I do accidently I get very sick.

StevenD
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:25 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by StevenD » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:27 am

You cannot find ONE example of a non-virgin (not including widow) girl taking a husband and it be a righteous union.
The Scriptures don't often make explicit reference to which unions were considered righteous or not.

However, accounting for notable mention in the genealogy of Christ, Rahab (i.e. "the harlot", e.g. Heb. 11:21; Jam. 2:25) does appear to offset your argument.
Matthew records that "Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab" (1:5a; also cf. Ruth 4:20f; Lk. 3:32).

Seeing that Matthew is recounting the royal lineage through which God fulfilled the unique Divine oaths given to both Abraham (Gen. 22:16-18; Matt. 1:1) and David (Ps. 110:4; Matt. 1:1), perhaps this example will serve to update your thesis.

Peace in Christ,
-sd

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3346
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Sin against the body

Post by steve » Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:59 pm

Pastor Gregg,

Do you agree with Michelle when I asked her the following:

Is the woman who has taken a second husband while her first husband is alive............is she along with the man forgiven if they continue the relationship?

Michelle's response: They can be forgiven, yes.

Do you agree with this position?
Hello Roy,

First, I am not a pastor, but a layman. I was ordained by Calvary Chapel over thirty years ago, but I am not holding them to their endorsement, since my views have since changed in ways unacceptable to them. Even if I were still ordained, however, that is not the same thing as being a pastor. I have not been charged with the oversight of a congregation.

Second, I agree with Michelle, if the question is whether there are circumstances in which a woman can be freed from her marriage bond while her husband is alive. The woman at the well had (according to Jesus) five legitimate husbands, and one immoral relationship. There must have been something in the dissolution of those first four marriages that seemed to legitimize the following ones, in Jesus' sight. We are not told, nor does it seem probable, that her five husbands had all died. Jesus only failed to recognize the legitimacy of her sixth partner.
In other words..............is "death" not the only vehicle by which the one flesh bond is broken i.e., "but if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband."
Death is not the only thing that releases the bond of marriage, if we are to trust Paul on this (1 Cor.7:15). Paul's statements in Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 are essentially identical. His words pertain (explicitly, in Romans 7:2, and implicitly in 1 Corinthians 7:39) to "the woman who has a husband." A woman freed from her husband by biblically legitimate means is no longer a woman "who has a husband." She has an ex-husband.

The obligations applicable to a woman who has a husband differ from those that apply to a woman who has no husband. Jesus acknowledged that the Samaritan woman was in the latter category—"You have said well, 'I have no husband'" (John 4:17)—though she did have multiple ex-husbands. Obviously, Paul's words about "the woman who has a husband" (Rom.7:2) would not be applicable to her.
Do you agree with Michelle in that 'forgiveness' also releases the law of her husband?
I am not sure you understood Michelle's position. There would have to be other factors involved for a woman to be additionally released from the marital bond. I am pretty sure that Michelle agrees with this. However, if a woman has broken that bond sinfully, forgiveness releases her from guilt—assuming she can do nothing more to make restitution.

My answers to any follow-up questions on this matter will probably be found addressed in the document at this link: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ta_divorce.php

There is no marriage vow (swearing) in the entire bible.
Besides Genesis 2:24, Malachi 2:14-15 is, perhaps, the principal teaching on marriage and divorce in the Old Testament. There is reference to one's "wife by covenant." Marriage is intended as an earthly parallel to the marriage between God and His people (Eph.5:31-32). It is clear that it was the entering into a covenant with God, at Sinai, that Israel came to be regarded as "married" to God. A covenant is entered bi-laterally, by mutual agreement of two parties. That agreement is expressed in a pledge, or a vow (cf., Prov.31:2). Our relationship in covenant with Christ is expressed in baptism, which Peter refers to as "the pledge* of a good conscience toward God" (1 Peter 2:21).

*A possible translation of the Gr.eperotema—usually translated "request" or "demand," but also meaning "pledge" (See NET Bible; Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich)

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 4947
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Sin against the body

Post by Paidion » Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:11 am

The woman at the well had (according to Jesus) five legitimate husbands, and one immoral relationship. There must have been something in the dissolution of those first four marriages that seemed to legitimize the following ones, in Jesus' sight. We are not told, nor does it seem probable, that her five husbands had all died. Jesus only failed to recognize the legitimacy of her sixth partner.
The difficulty with this type of analysis is that in Greek, there is but a single word "ανηρ" (anār) that is translated either as "man" or "husband" at the discretion of the translator. The same with the word "γυνη" (gunā, or some transliterate it as "gyne" from which we get the English word "gynecology") that means either "woman" or "wife."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 82.

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Thu Jan 14, 2016 7:13 am

I agree with Paidon.

From John Jerome Nowak:

Samaritan woman

In the case of the Samaria woman (noted: Jews have no dealings with Samaritans) at the well, she had five husbands (actual word men, not revealing they had marriage status with her). When using the correct words men and man, it can be perceived and accepted that Jesus is pointed out she had not marriage status in God's eyes with any of these men. She said has no man, Jesus said she answered truly. The explanation best of my understanding, is she committed adultery with already married men, to other woman. Where any joining of the flesh with these type already married men, is adultery. Is not a marriage in God's word.

John 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. 16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy man, and come hither. 17 The woman answered and said, I have no man. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no man: 18 For thou hast had five men; and he whom thou now hast is not thy man: in that saidst thou truly. 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.


RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:20 am

steve wrote:There is reference to one's "wife by covenant."

What did the Lord witness: Vows and exchange of rings. Or the sex act.

"Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth....yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring."


God made them ONE. How could He do this if not through sexual intercourse. Can a man and a woman who contract through the State and receive a marriage license and then walk down an aisle; exchange vows............if they do not have sexual intercourse, can the man and the woman produce offspring? Of course not.

The Lord witnessed the act of sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is the covenant. There is agreement: when a woman opens her legs she is agreeing and allowing the man to be her authority - her husband. He goes into her and she becomes 'known' by him. Their 'flesh' is now ONE. Society should recognize them as man and wife. You can not fault the Scriptures for society's failure to recognize this simple Godly principle. Society is prophesied as devolving, not evolving from a righteous perspective. Luke 18:8


From an unknown author: In a marriage covenant, sex is the blood sacrifice. People enter into the marriage covenant as they join their bodies sexually to one another, becoming 'one flesh' with that other person. Paul called this a mystery, and it is difficult to believe. But when two bodies join in sex, they do become one. Sex itself is self-sacrifice -- blood sacrifice. A wedding is the outward sign that marks this covenantal relationship that has begun. Neither a wedding nor vows nor a contract has initiated this bonding. Sex is the blood sacrifice, initiator, and beginning of marriage. A couple is not married in God's eyes until they have had sex with each other. Even in modern times, a marriage is not said to be consummated or completed until the couple have had sex. In the covenant that the Lord made with Abraham to bless him with many descendants and much land recorded in Genesis 15, a heifer, a goat and a ram were sacrificed. God Himself passed between the meat that had been sacrificed to make the covenant. Strong's concordance says that the Hebrew word 'beriyth' actually means 'compact -- made by passing between pieces of flesh.' In the marriage covenant, the man passes between the flesh of the other to 'cut' the covenant."

From barah (in the sense of cutting (like bara')); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh)


Deuteronomy 22:15

Post Reply

Return to “Marriage & Divorce”