The actual remarriage allowances of the NT

[EarlyActs]

Certainly the Bible is against divorce, with the sound of 'I hate divorce' echoing from the prophets. But this thread is on misunderstood options once that has taken place. Based on Mt 5, 6, 19, Mk 10, Jn 4 and 8 as incidents, Rom 7 and I Cor 7, there are only 2 options for remarriage and they are in relation to adultery and the cheated spouse. The cheatED may remarry a never-married person or a widow/er. The cheatING person may not remarry without being in adultery. This is not quite the way the NT puts things but it does condense what is said.

We think of adultery as a singular act, but the NT is referring to the abuse of remarriage. This was happening in 1st cent. Judaism and earned it the title 'the wicked and adulterous generation.' Notice that there can be hatred for prostitutes right along side 'legal' remarriage; and there was.

 

[Josheb]

Certainly the Bible is against divorce, with the sound of 'I hate divorce' echoing from the prophets. But this thread is on misunderstood options once that has taken place. Based on Mt 5, 6, 19, Mk 10, Jn 4 and 8 as incidents, Rom 7 and I Cor 7, there are only 2 options for remarriage and they are in relation to adultery and the cheated spouse. The cheatED may remarry a never-married person or a widow/er. The cheatING person may not remarry without being in adultery. This is not quite the way the NT puts things but it does condense what is said.

We think of adultery as a singular act, but the NT is referring to the abuse of remarriage. This was happening in 1st cent. Judaism and earned it the title 'the wicked and adulterous generation.' Notice that there can be hatred for prostitutes right along side 'legal' remarriage; and there was.

Most of that is correct and good, but most of that is also culpable of onlyism in one form or another. For example, Jesus explained the reason Moses permitted divorce, implying it was acceptable for Moses to do so, but then Jesus explained it wasn't that way in the beginning and he then qualified allowable divorce with an "except." The "except" being sexual immorality (Mt. 5:32 & 19:9). Notice this sexually immoral (ex-)wife is not said to be adulterous unless or until she remarries . Remember Jesus' words were couched in the Tanakh, especially those of the Pentateuch's Law. The Law treated any pair of men and women who'd had sex as married. The law required them to marry - but only if they are discovered!!!

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Of course, if she's not a virgin when they are discovered then they can go their separate ways, and everyone is going to have to be okay with it all . That is, unless, of course, they're applying Exodus over Deuteronomy because...

Exodus 22:16-17
If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.

In which case all he has to do is pay a dowry and even then marriage is not required if dad's not okay with the guy. Premarital sex is okay if you do not get caught or pay dad for having sex with his daughter and you're good to go; the standards of the Law have been met. Unless, of course, one of them is a sorcerer, they included an animal, or made a sacrifice to another god. Then one or both of them have to die.

Good thing the cross did away with all that. Now we can pay to sleep with all the dads' daughter and commit adultery because all those sins can be forgiven.

Romans 6:1
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?



The point is this: treating God's word legalistically makes a mockery of it.

The principle upon which all those commands were built is simple: purity. In modern vernacular: keep your pants. You're not going to win a modern civil suit demanding someone pay you for having sex with your daughter (or you paying some other dad because your son violated the Mosaic Law).

Legalism kills.

 

[EarlyActs]

Most of that is correct and good, but most of that is also culpable of onlyism in one form or another. For example, Jesus explained the reason Moses permitted divorce, implying it was acceptable for Moses to do so, but then Jesus explained it wasn't that way in the beginning and he then qualified allowable divorce with an "except." The "except" being sexual immorality (Mt. 5:32 & 19:9). Notice this sexually immoral (ex-)wife is not said to be adulterous unless or until she remarries . Remember Jesus' words were couched in the Tanakh, especially those of the Pentateuch's Law. The Law treated any pair of men and women who'd had sex as married. The law required them to marry - but only if they are discovered!!!

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Of course, if she's not a virgin when they are discovered then they can go their separate ways, and everyone is going to have to be okay with it all . That is, unless, of course, they're applying Exodus over Deuteronomy because...

Exodus 22:16-17
If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.

In which case all he has to do is pay a dowry and even then marriage is not required if dad's not okay with the guy. Premarital sex is okay if you do not get caught or pay dad for having sex with his daughter and you're good to go; the standards of the Law have been met. Unless, of course, one of them is a sorcerer, they included an animal, or made a sacrifice to another god. Then one or both of them have to die.

Good thing the cross did away with all that. Now we can pay to sleep with all the dads' daughter and commit adultery because all those sins can be forgiven.

Romans 6:1
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?



The point is this: treating God's word legalistically makes a mockery of it.

The principle upon which all those commands were built is simple: purity. In modern vernacular: keep your pants. You're not going to win a modern civil suit demanding someone pay you for having sex with your daughter (or you paying some other dad because your son violated the Mosaic Law).

Legalism kills.

On Dt 22, I don't think there was positive advice to do that! It was just explaining what to do in that case. Seems to me there is a general rule in the law about not lying.

My intention was that there was misunderstanding due to our transformational Marxist age that the divorced person was now back to square 1, neutral, and could proceed to another marriage. Not in a NT community, nope. In a map of communism's effort to ruin the US, no-fault divorce and remarriage is at the beginning.

 

[Josheb]

My intention was that there was misunderstanding due to our transformational Marxist age.......

That should have been stated in the op.


Have you been reading the Epoch Times?

 

[EarlyActs]

That should have been stated in the op.


Have you been reading the Epoch Times?

No I know of them, but heard it explained in the 00s by Scott Bower, an ID state senator in his doc GRINDING AMERICA DOWN

 

[Josheb]

No I know of them, but heard it explained in the 00s by Scott Bower, an ID state senator in his doc GRINDING AMERICA DOWN

I asked because ET recently ran an article on the Communist plans for undermining America and democratic societies (ET is run by Chinese dissidents).

If you'd like to talk about the scriptures and what should be our approach to marriage, divorce, and remarriage then that's a discussion that can be had without ever mentioning communism (or any other political system). If you'd like to discuss communism's influence on American society then I don't think that discussion can (or should) be limited to marriage. divorce, and remarriage - especially if the premise is communism seeks to eradicate all of it.

I do think the purpose of the op should be clarified because I don't think we are quite yet in a "Marxist age," even though the influence is mark is plentiful and diverse. Have you ever read Marx?

 

[EarlyActs]

I asked because ET recently ran an article on the Communist plans for undermining America and democratic societies (ET is run by Chinese dissidents).

If you'd like to talk about the scriptures and what should be our approach to marriage, divorce, and remarriage then that's a discussion that can be had without ever mentioning communism (or any other political system). If you'd like to discuss communism's influence on American society then I don't think that discussion can (or should) be limited to marriage. divorce, and remarriage - especially if the premise is communism seeks to eradicate all of it.

I do think the purpose of the op should be clarified because I don't think we are quite yet in a "Marxist age," even though the influence is mark is plentiful and diverse. Have you ever read Marx?

And yet as both China and Russia know, the smallest unit of government competing with them is the family. So they must do anything they can think of to neutralize it, ruin it.

What is more intriguing to me is that the sexual revolution has gone exactly in the direction prohibited by Jesus/NT on divorce. Which is par.

 

[Josheb]

And yet as both China and Russia know, the smallest unit of government competing with them is the family. So they must do anything they can think of to neutralize it, ruin it.

There are plenty of families in both countries.

What is more intriguing to me is that the sexual revolution has gone exactly in the direction prohibited by Jesus/NT on divorce. Which is par.

And very similar to all societies, cultures, nations, empires that view marriage and sex liberally.

What does that have to do with "the actual remarriage allowances of the New Testament"?

 

[EarlyActs]

There are plenty of families in both countries.

And very similar to all societies, cultures, nations, empires that view marriage and sex liberally.

What does that have to do with "the actual remarriage allowances of the New Testament"?

Yes, the people revolted! check the history.

The Left seeks to smash the thing that makes the smallest unit of self-government work. They have championed the very thing that Jesus is proscribing. No surprise, but you wanted to know what it has to do with. With breaking it.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, the people revolted! check the history.

I am aware of history. I've studied a few ancient cultures specifically, read Marx firsthand, and know its history.

The Left seeks to smash the thing that makes the smallest unit of self-government work. They have championed the very thing that Jesus is proscribing. No surprise, but you wanted to know what it has to do with. With breaking it.

What does that have to do with "the actual remarriage allowances of the New Testament"?

 

[EarlyActs]

I am aware of history. I've studied a few ancient cultures specifically, read Marx firsthand, and know its history.

What does that have to do with "the actual remarriage allowances of the New Testament"?

the actual allowances, not the trans-Marxist ones that have infiltrated even churches, restore sanity to sexual practice for society and the church should be the model of that. Please bear in mind this is extremely raw to me, as my former wife 'flipped' back to utterly progressive values, but claimed she was a Christian. To add to the paradox, we were going to write a book called THE SEXCEPTION on how Christians were making this very exception to their own marriages--but stated as 'the marital-sexual practices of the NT are completely outdated.' She ultimately said 'what Jesus said about remarriage of divorced people was insanity.'

Sanity vs insanity, got it?

If you have to ask again, I think you are quite dim about the realities involved. A passive and detached way to get use to them is to view a few dramas about these things.

 

[Josheb]

If you have to ask again, I think you are quite dim...

Thank you for your time.